Nick Karn <glassmoondt@yahoo.com> (15.10.99)

I don't own any David Bowie albums myself (although I have heard quite a few of his songs, and I have to say I'm impressed with what I hear), but I'd say it's a bit unfair to dismiss him as an 'insincere' songwriter, which I can't really see as the 'absolute truth' for anyone in music. Every songwriter has a certain 'vehicle' for expression, and the 'musical chameleon' style is just how he prefers to do it. For all you know his meaningless lyrics and odd arrangements could serve as metaphors for his views on life and emotional state of himself, even while he may be playing a character as on Ziggy Stardust. In my opinion, there seems to be two reasons anyone gets into making music in the first place - to express yourself and to sell records If he was too smart to become a one dimensional sell-out artist (although he did freely admit to doing so in the Let's Dance era) and care only about doing that, then I'd think he was taking the first approach. Just my opinion on Bowie's 'sincerity' - I'm not saying yours is right or wrong.

Greg <floyd@chorus.net> (20.02.2000)

Hey man, I just spent a good 45 minutes reading your reviews on David Bowie. First I would like to say that your opinions are very respectable, I can see that you have a good basis as to how you rate your music. There are a couple things I would like you to consider about David Bowie. I don't understand how you can be so hard on a musician regarded by other musicians as one of the MOST influential artists if ALL TIME! Obviuosly you are entitled to your opinions, and when the majority of modern musicians see David Bowie as a legendary inspiration I think you should reconsider your outlook on David Bowie. I am an avid fan of David Bowie. I have recently discovered him and EVERY album I've heard gives me a new outlook on music in general... Yes even Never Let Me Down! I won't disagree that David Bowie likes to conform his music to whatever is "hip" at the time, and that to me proves the completness that David Bowie contains. How many musicians that you can think of have been around since the sixties that can change on a dime from one album to another and do it well. The only band I can think of is Pink Floyd, and they were more of a slow transition from the sixties to now anyway. Bowie DID conform his music yes, and still on every album he has that David Bowie "flare", and that is the "flare" that is known to be so inspirational. He has had that flare since his first track was produced, and he has carried it to every track in between to the latest track he recorded on hours. I don't know of ANY musicians who are more versital and creative. It is obvious that the man is a genious both intellectually and artistically. I know David Bowie goes in my top 5 favorite and inspirational artists. He maybe be at this point in my life second to the one and only Pink Floyd.

Rose Littlehales <Rose.Littlehales@fylde.screaming.net> (02.04.2000)

Hay no offence but give David some credit!!

Florence <Daniel.Gadeyne@wanadoo.fr> (08.05.2000)

I'm not a music expert but I don't think that only one artist can create a genre except maybe his own. Could you tell me who created Rock, Punk or New Wave? There's no limit for the beginning of those styles. You can always go back to a previous artist. So, maybe Mozart invented Pop music...

Evdokimov D.L. <D_Evdokimov@mtu-net.ru> (11.06.2000)

Hello!  I love David and his music. Hi is a great actor.  Labirint is the best.

Neema Parvini <Parvini1@aol.com> (29.09.2000)

I'm a massive Bowie fan and before reading your introduction just read the reviews... and of course was shocked at the dismissive nature of the Hunky Dory one. However after reading your introduction I must say you have presented a valid case against Bowie. Admirably you refrain from placing him (as probably at least 3 out of every 5 critics would and EVERY major magazine) 'up there' with the likes of the Beatles. Being an even bigger Dylan fan i can appreciate the need for things to 'come from the heart' but I think you underestimate Bowie's cultural significance. Whilst, arguably, he did not create genres he was certainly responsible for bringing them to the masses. Who'd heard of Lou Reed before Bowie produced Transformer for instance. Perhaps it is an American thing (for I know that he was never quite as successful stateside) but here he's had 8 no.1 albums, with only 3 of them from his 70's output. I can understand your argument but Bowie still deserves a higher 'general rating' then 3.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (07.12.2000)

I'd like to sum up all David's positive and negative moments. Let's start from the good side.

sophie rual <avaldes@club-internet.fr> (12.04.2001)

Yes, Bowie is a mystificator but not one of his fan know why :

Kevin Saliba <raylomas@euroweb.net.mt> (18.10.2002)

Hi George, I'm a fan of Bowie and recently I came across an article which gives a very different interpretation of Bowie and his life and works. Basically, it deals in detail with Bowie's relationship with the occult and how it influenced heavily his music, paintings and life in general. I do not know whether this interpretation is a valid one; but I think it's is food for thought nevertheless. It may give to us fans another insight on his development and evolution as an artist.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I'm pretty much a die-hard Bowie fan, although I've only been one for about half a year. But over that time period I've managed to spend hundreds of dollars of student loan money on Bowie albums (vinyl and CD) so I think that constitutes devotion.

apple555 <apple555@yandex.ru> (25.04.2003)

First, I just now have listened to Heathen. I'm overwhelmed. You're right, it's perfect indeed. Absolutely immaculate, and this is really weird. Why on earth did it not get 10? My rating now is:

Alik Zubr <alikzubr@yahoo.com> (10.06.2003)

To my opinion, it is absolutely impossible to rate David on the same scale with other great artists and bands. When listening to a Bowie record - be it one of his "best", like Ziggy Stardust, or be it one of his "worst", like Tonight - one almost immediately gets the impression of his greatness. But, on the other hand, this is not the kind of greatness one feels is present in the Beatles. The Beatles' greatness is HUGE: it makes you forget everything in the world and go totally ecstatic. The greatness of David Bowie is weird, somewhat perverted, and it is also spread over all of his records in a much more careful way than the greatness of others. It looks like he just took all of his talent - way back there, in 1967 or even earlier - then cut it into three/four hundred equal parts and even now, after all these years, he has still some of these parts left.

Palash Ghosh <london1963@msn.com> (24.01.2004)

I grew up knowing David Bowie's name and image (he was incredibly famous) and a few of his better-known songs like "Space Oddity" and "Fame" -- but only in recent years (as a jaded adult) have I started to really explore the man's music. I must say, George, that your analysis of Bowie was very stimulating -- I could not disagree with much of it, and, yet, I think I hold a much higher opinion of him than you do.

Elizabeth <slashqueen@hotmail.com> (31.07.2004)

Overall, I really like your webpage of David Bowie album reviews. Most of the things you find online about Bowie are written by fanatics who would say his last album was good if his last album entirely consisted of him reading aloud the phone book. Either that or it's websites by people who hate Bowie and dismiss him as a fag.

Trond Braaten <trond.braaten@online.no> (14.10.2005)

First of all let me say that this is a great site. But the following quote about Bowie not being a sincere artist I find rather odd (espesically the last sentence):

sakal <sakal@btinternet.com> (11.06.2006)

If you get tired of these little addenda and corrections, you can say so. I am bothering because you have done a very good site, mostly. But some things go over your head. That's not surprising - Russian cultural referents would mostly go over mine.

No reader comments yet.

Pirjo Kling <pirjo.kling@tutka.net> (08.06.2001)

Just want to say that I really don't find this as Bowies debut album. Why? Well, according to my knowledge the Music was Bowies but he didn't have much t do with the building of this one.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (04.10.99)

I'm glad to find someone else who thinks that "God Knows I'm Good" is a great tune. I've always felt that it really catches the album at its most clever and catchy. The rest of the album is sort of a letdown, but with a couple of classic tracks. The best are the title track (obvious, really), "An Occasional Dream," the super-catchy "Janine," and the end part to "Memory Of A Free Festival." I'd give it a high six, or maybe a seven when I'm in the mood. And does anybody have any idea what's supposed to be going on in "Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud"?

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

I don't quite understand the appeal of this album.  I mean, if you asked me to *objectively* rank it, I'd tell you it blows without thinking twice.  And yet...it's tough for me to dismiss Space Oddity (or David Bowie, or Man Of Words, Man Of Music, or David Does Dylan, or whatever it's being called these days) so cavalierly, 'cause for some reason I enjoy the damned thing quite a bit.  Certainly I like it more than The Man Who Sold The World - whereas that sludgefest actually has some tracks that I openly DISLIKE, this one has got nothing really unpleasant, just loads and loads of naivete, and perhaps a sprinkling of stupidity.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.12.2000)

'Space oddity'? Or 'Face oddity'? Whatever be, it's great. This is the first David's album you can really enjoy (or the most part of it). Lyrics of title track are well constructed and that's why they are so enjoyable! But still they remind me Ray Bradbury or A.Azimov. The next track( 'Unwashed and somewhat slightly dazed' ) in my opinion is rip-off from 'Song for Jeffrey' by Jethro Tull.

Pirjo Kling <pirjo.kling@tutka.net> (08.06.2001)

Like George said "whatever he does, you know he doesn't really believe in it". I mean he never takes very seriously anything he's doing. David's irony is mostly so gentle that seldom people really recognize it at all. The homosexual glam rocker, mid-seventies white soul man, Pop Prince in the eighties -they were all created with a lil' twinkle of humour in his good-old-odd-eyes.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (12.10.99)

For the most part we agree on this one, although I like "All The Madmen" and hate "Width Of A Circle," whereas you seem to be quite the opposite. I guess a lot of people like this album because it's "dark" (or so I've read in reviews), but I don't see it. It just sounds like a bunch of half-realized rockers to me, most of them not being gloomy in the least. The ones I like are "After All," "All The Madmen," the title track (which I, like many others of my generation, became familiar with through Nirvana's swell cover), and... well, that's about it. The rest of the songs are boring. I give it a five.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

Yeah, you're right George, it's boring.  But The Man Who Sold The World DOES sound genuinely like heavy-metal.  I wasn't sure what to expect from it before I got it, hearing it described as a heavy metallish album; I think I was expecting an APPROXIMATION of the sound similar to the way Young Americans approximates black soul without actually being the real McCoy.  But lo and behold, folks - this is REAL heavy metal most of the time, not a fakey Bowie version.  Of course, that heavy metal "sound" is not really Bowie's doing at all, but Mick Ronson's; the story is that during the sessions for The Man Who Sold The World Bowie was at an absolute low in terms of interest in the music-making process, being more concerned with his new wife and arriving to the sessions with exactly ONE song written ("Width Of A Circle"), and that in a version drastically different from the one heard here.  As a result, most of the songs here were "written" by Tony Visconti and Mick Ronson, working tirelessly to bang an album out of jams, fragments, and Bowie's lyrics which were composed on the scene, more or less.  So if anyone should be given credit for the places where this album works, it's probably those two.  "All The Madmen," for example, is largely Visconti's triumph (and the best song on the album, I think), while "The Man Who Sold The World" was based on a Ronson riff all the way through.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (07.12.2000)

It's better to describe this album in two words: 'boring but'. Don't forget that this album started real Bowie's career and audience was really influenced by The man who sold the world. In my opinion this album is better than Space oddity and it's surely darker than all Bowie's albums he produced before. The man who sold the world is more agressive, too! Take 'Width of the circle' or 'Running gun blues' for instance. I was really frightened by these songs (oh, well not 'frightened' but 'impressed'). Guitarwork is very good, too. 'Black country rock' is rather pretty number and 'The man who sold the world' is ...err... I don't know how to desribe it, just believe that it's very good song. The only two songs I dislike here are 'Superman' and 'After all'.

Bryan Boyd Jackson Jr. <bjackson@brandywine.net> (07.01.2001)

What the heck is wrong with you people? The Man Who Sold The World is a great album! Every song is incredible except "She Shook Me Cold". Seems as if too much is going on at once to enjoy it on that song. But besides that, everything else is incredible. "Saviour Machine" and "Width Of A Circle are excellent songs. Don't listen to George or these other jabroni's, buy this album now.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I read that Bowie was actually very uninvolved with this album because he was always off screwing his new wife and smoking pot. I just thought that maybe that might explain something about why it was such a mess. And it is a mess, I agree. I like most of it except for 'Running Gun Blues' because... God... Who can stomach it when his voice get's THAT nasal? I probably love Bowie's voice more than the next person but the delivery on that one is really too much. And I don't really like 'The Supermen' that much because the more acoustic version that now comes on the bonus disk for the 30th aniversary Ziggy Stadust is the one I heard first and is actually much superior.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

Rick Wakeman once called Hunky Dory "one of the most fantastic collections of great songs ever," and while that's a bit effusive, you'll find me hard-pressed to disagree. Hunky Dory is just magically delicious, with beautiful melodies and orchestrations all over the joint, some surprisingly hard-hitting lyrics, a few rockers, and one grating Anthony Newleyesque tune thrown in for good measure.  In fact, I definitely prefer this to Ziggy Stardust, though to a certain degree that's because for the longest time Hunky Dory, due to its popularity, was absolutely the hardest David Bowie album to find on CD.  I started listening to Mr. Jones after they deleted all of his Rykodisc albums from the market, and collecting all the Rykodisc versions (something I'm now glad I did, as the packaging and bonus tracks make them far superior to the new EMI remasters) was something of a two-year odyssey which took from from California to Washington D.C. to the beaches of Brighton, England, where I finally found this one.

What?  "MY WAY?"

Yep.  Here's the story: Bowie had been asked to write a set of lyrics for a French melody, "Comme D'habitude," but they were rejected and Paul Anka was asked to submit a different set. The result was "My Way," endless Frank Sinatra comebacks, and Karaoke night for Japanese businessmen down at the local bar. "Life On Mars?" is therefore a pretty neat parody of "My Way," ("inspired by Frankie," as Bowie's liner notes say), utilizing a very similar four bar melody.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

Yes, "Life On Mars?" is the best song on here, and the rest are certainly great as well. Except for "Eight Line Poem," which more or less sucks. I could give this album a nine - it's defenitely one of his most solid works.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (19.07.2000)

It's hard to say a lot about an album that's REALLY consistent, but keeps basically the same pretty, gorgeous mood the whole way through. But doesn't that speak in favor of the album itself? The tributes are awesome ("Queen Beeeeotch" in particular), the three classics are grandiose and effective ("Life On Mars?" is an absolute triumph, and I find the verse melodies of "Changes" and "Oh! You Pretty Things" to be just as captivating as the choruses) and the bouncy dippy songs like "Fill Your Heart" and "Kooks" work as little asides to bookend the overblown "Quicksand"(at least, on the CD version). "Eight Line Poem" is the only weak point due to lack of a distinguishable, memorable melody, but it's short and serves as a breather between the two masterpieces it sits between. I give it a nine-- I can't see how this can get an eight. It's definitely one of Bowie's most well-performed, well-written albums (and one of the only ones where he shows any sincerity at all).

<Wardo68@aol.com> (26.08.2000)

With a split second hesitation, and immediate defense of the ones I like almost as much, Hunky Dory is my favorite David Bowie album. It's a nice album, and I mean that in a good way, but like all his stuff there's a sinister undercurrent. I will explain this further as each track goes by.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (07.12.2000)

Very strange album and very strange review, though it's all because of the oddity of this album. I mean when someone gives it 8 out of 10, I disagree but when I rate it 10/10 I disagree with myself! So don't count this letter as disagreement or agreement - I just can't give it final rating. Once I thought of Hunky Dory as about one of the best David's album but then I got into contraversy with myself. Still I don't understand how can you rate Ziggy stardust higher than Hunky Dory. The last one is surely better. Just compare them (don't count the concept, it gives only interest to the album as a story): Four ass-kicking piano songs ('Changes', 'Oh! You pretty thing', 'Eight line poem', 'Life on Mars?') on Hunky Dory against one on Ziggy stardust (though, I have to admit that this one moves me to tears while previous four just make me think about my life and some other silly things). Other songs are equal to each other (oh, well, almost equal - I have to admit that Ziggy Stardust songs are a little bit better but it's all because of 'Rock'n'roll suicide').

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (29.03.2002)

I'm not afraid to say that his sexuality disregarded, Bowie is and always will be my musical idol. The man was a genius and a great writer, unabashedly un-mainstream but also charismatic and affable. And this record, while not his best work overall (Ziggy Stardust, anyone?), is the prime example of his genius, to me. Every production technique, every chord change, every brilliant lyric demonstrates Bowie's anarchic, relentless creativity to me better than anything else in his canon. The song list is unrivaled by most: "Life On Mars?" achieves brilliant, winning grandiosity and flourish, "Andy Warhol" is a thrilling bit of--how shall I say?--"fucking around in the studio", "Changes" remains a classic bit of pseudo-cocktail jazz (how many of those are there in rock'n'roll?), "Oh! You Pretty Things" rivals McCartney as a wonderful piece of pop, and "Song for Bob Dylan" and "Queen Bitch" nicely skewer Zimmerman and Lou Reed to a delightful extent. Granted, Hunky isn't as polished as stuff like "Heroes" and Ziggy, but I believe that that actually contributes to its unbridled artistic effect. Yes, this is remarkably close to a 10--side one is top-notch pop, and side two is brilliant experimentalism--but "Kooks" and "The Bewlay Brothers" bring it down just a smite. A 9 from me, one of the best 9s of all time. Hear this record, all who haven't--it's David at his dynamic best.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

Why is it that every time a guy says he likes David Bowie he feels inclined to distance himself from his sexuality? I'm just a girl, though, so what do I know... It's ACCEPTABLE for me to be in love with him when he wears stilleto heels...

Palash Ghosh <london1963@msn.com> (28.01.2004)

I can't decipher if you really like this album or not, George, but I love it. I find it exhilarating music, full of eccentric elegance and grandeur (fake, according to you). It might be Bowie's finest record (though there are many of his albums I have yet to listen to).

Adrian Subrt <asubrt@houston.rr.com> (09.07.2004)

Bowie must have really felt the pressure for commercial success after the massive seller that was The Man Who Sold The World. So much pressure that even the demigod that is himself felt trapped in. He escapes from this commercial tyranny by recruiting a future member of Yes and writing many off-kilter, piano-based, and acoustic tunes.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (10.01.2000)

I guess no one's commented on this one because it's so universally commented-on that it would have no meaning to say anything about it. I personally find it not to be an amazing album, but easily the most consistent in his catalogue, and it really, really picks up at the end starting with "Hang On To Yourself." Still...

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

I think this album is pretty overrated. The last three songs are the only great ones (but boy are they good!), and the rest is just harmless, old timey, glammy rock and roll. Nothing bad, nothing great - I give it an eight. Hey!

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (24.08.2000)

Ok, so you have probably heard what a great record this is, but you are still unsure whether to buy it do to its glam-rock/androgynous overview.  Well, let me assure you, I felt the same way for a while--I mean Bowie is a WEIRD guy.  I already had his Changesbowie compilation, but an album seemed like it might be a little too weird for me (so as you probably can tell he is not one of my favorite performers).  Yet, once I heard the album, I thought--wow, it is tremendous.  Sure Bowie is still weird, but that doesn't limit him from writing some awesome music--to which every track on ZSATSFM is.  And like George said, screw the concept, it doesn't really make a lot of sense--all I can gather is that the world is nearing its demise and then this plastic adrogynous Ziggy Stardust from Space comes and brings his band there to rise to fame and save the world.  I think they save the world, but in doing so Ziggy let's his fame get to his head, and he ends up depressed conteplating suicide.  I mean, first of all that is a pretty f-up concept that doesn't make any sense, but the music behind it and the lyrics of the album do not need the concept to make any sense.  So, it ultimately works despite the concept's shortcomings.  That is about the only "problem" with the disc however.  It opens with a dire/moody yet beautiful ballad "Five Years".  It starts off so quiet/moody/gentle but by the end it is a roaring piece of music coupled with end of the world lyrics that rush at you with David's frantic/energetic screaming.  It makes for a great piece of music, one of my all-time favorite album openers, and in the top 5 of my favorite Bowie tracks--I can't tire of it.  Next is the rather standard--yet good don't get me wrong--"Soul Love".  By standard here I mean that it fits well on the record, and it is very Bowie-esque, but it is still a great track just not a highlight of a  highlights-only disc.  "Moonage Daydream" is next and it is a rocker.  The track works so well, and is a major highlight, mainly because of the guitar solo--I mean the track is alright, but coupled with the brilliant guitar solo that really will knock you out with headphones--it is just tremendous.  It isn't really because it is technically good, but it just has this larger than life sound and is one of my favorite  guitar solos ever because of the effect it reaches.  "Starman" is next, and I actually like this song much more for its verses than its chorus.  I like the weird/dancy verses, but I feel that the chorus is a bit of a letdown--it isn't bad it just doesn't fit too well with the verses.  Still it is a great song and another highlight.  "Star" and "It Ain't Easy" I will just couple together here because they are the closest this album has to filler--not too poor, but also not too great either.  I am however eager to hear Ray Davies' original, but the cover is alright--great dynamics, but it just sounds too 70's hard rockish to me (which means it doesn't quite have a timeless feel to it like many of the other tracks).  "Lady Stardust" is the best pure ballad on the disc.  It has a gripping melody, and is sung very well by Bowie (given his shaky voice which I agree with).  "Hang On To Yourself" is the proto-punk track.  It sounds very Velvet Underground--meets the Ramonesish, and it cooks.  Then we get the brilliant three closers: "Ziggy Stardust" which is an excellent riff-rocker, that really didn't grow on me until I learned it on guitar--which is odd enough, but it is exceptional; "Suffragette City" was the track off of Changesbowie that made me very interested in purchasing this disc, and it is another exceptional highlight.  Finally, the desparate closer "Rock N Roll Suicide" ends the album almost as brilliantly as it began.  It starts off as a slow/moody/depressive guitar song, then explodes into a plea for someone to not commit suicide.  Nevertheless, it is a classic end to a classic album--Bowie's best (although I have only heard about 6-7 of them and those are the critically acclaimed mind you).  The reissue adds some excellent extras, which although pale to the albums brilliance aren't too shabby either--my favorites are the two demos at the end. This album is one of those which definately deserves all of its hoopla.  I am no big Bowie fan (actually I think the man is a genius because he can change his music and styles so effectively, even if  A LOT of his music does not fit my tastes). Still though, this disc is just incredible.  It deserves a 10/10, it's his best and is easily in my top 20 albums ever.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (14.12.2000)

Woderful album with strong concept depicting a rock star driven to destruction by the expectations of his audience. It's very hard to show the feelings that Ziggy evokes in me but believe that they are true (though, again it's a game, a play and I hardly believe that Bowie is sincere). I almost agree with you ideas about Ziggy except the best song. 'Starman' is surely good but I don't like that childish tune after great chorus. Not that it ruins the whole song but leaves a strange feeling (and not very enjoyable). See, the main melody is strong and serious but post-chorus tune hurts (a little bit, though) the whole serious concept of album. In my opinion, 'Five years' is definitely better. The only Bowie's song that moves me to tears (sometimes). Still as I said before I almost agree with you about the album and give it 10/10, too. Thank you for such a good review.

Ryan Maffei <chaucer@ix.netcom.com> (29.03.2002)

This is one of the greatest albums of all time.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I don't know, I think the concept makes sense... Even if he didn't mean it to make sense it makes sense... Actually, it makes a lot more sense after watching the film Velvet Goldmine... I guess it just makes more sense after learning a little more about glam rock. I mean, a guy in semi-drag calling out to you, telling your you're not alone and to give him your hands... That's got to be appealing to a sexually confused pubescent young lad in the seventies. It's quite brilliant, really, especially the whole "Starman" thing, all sounding like Over the Rainbow and stuff. The whole album has this otherwordly, lonely outsider to rock superstar thing going on that's tied directly to bisexuality in rock. The bisexuals were once the weird outsiders and then they became the superstars... It all worked out perfectly. This all makes the album become a kind of prophecy or bible, which is what makes it so absolutely fascinating (note: I'm intentionally not comentating on the music because... Com'on... we've all heard and it and we all know it rocks). An amazing, amazing, amazing album. But really... You give the Beatles Revolver a perfect score and Ziggy a 13? Really, George.

Palash Ghosh <london1963@msn.com> (28.01.2004)

I realize that Ziggy Stardust is considered a classic album and is the record that established David Bowie's superstardom and guaranteed his immortality -- but, God forgive me, I’m just not that impressed by it!

Adrian Subrt <asubrt@houston.rr.com> (08.07.2004)

Just as Ziggy came from another planet, Bowie departs from his folk-rock leanings to full-blown glam superstardom. David unleashes a thrashing arsenal of ballads, power ballads, and rock classics. After releasing this, there was no doubt that Bowie would be a God of Poseidon-like status on the Mount Olympus of rock.

David Dickson <ddickson@rice.edu> (24.02.2006)

Adrenaline-raising, huh? Exciting, meh? Energetic, hurm? Well, I agree. But it's quite surprising to see that quite a damn few of our WRC colleagues don't. Can you believe it? I woulda thought that, listening to T-Rex and Mott the Hoople, it'd be obvious, but apparently there's a dirty, nasty lie circulating out there that glam rock is "supposed to be" all loud nasty primitive dirty trashy mashy scrashy rock and roll with guitars giutarts tuigars and nothing else. None of these sissy wissy PIANOS anyway. Most other guys listen to this album and scream in sassiness: "WHERE'S THE BALLS??@@@!" Funny--I always thought glam just meant a mixture of theatrics, bombasticism, irony, '50's rock, and faux-eroticism from the get- go, but apparently our [sic] fellow Americans have a much narrower def. (jam) One slight correction: "Five Years"' lyrics have nothing to do with Ziggy, or the rest of the storyline--they're all about the end of the world coming on and the entire planet breaking out into hysterics and sobbing. Quite understandable reaction, when you think about it.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (27.02.2006)

I also agree with some of your other posters: The concept behind the album is a sham. Like Sgt Pepper's ., the title song is a frame around which the rest of the songs are hung, but there isn't really any "plot." I mean, two of the songs had been recorded before the concept even existed. But the songs are really catchy, energetic and a lot of fun. David doesn't like his super-serious, "artistic" side get in the way, for the most part. I also have this version of the album and love the bonuses, especially "Sweet Head" and the alternate version of "John, I'm Only Dancing," which has some different guitar effects than the single version. The Sound and Vision boxset has another outtake from the sessions, a cover of Chuck Berry's "Around and Around," which fits in sonically (if not lyrically), believe it or not. Agree, probably Bowie's best and most consistent album from beginning to end.

Tim Blake <Tim.Blake@stats.govt.nz> (30.05.2006)

Well, here comes an unpopular opinion about Ziggy. Thanks in no small part to your site, I ended up acquiring a crapola load of David Bowie albums. Well, seven to be exact (Ziggy, Young Americans, Man Who Sold...,Hunky Dory, Low, Station To Station, Heroes), and I've been blasting them in some attempt to get into this guy's work. Solely because it is constantly quoted as the 'best' album, I've listened to Ziggy the most recently. I come to Bowie with little to no preconceptions, previously all I've really known about him is that he changes styles a lot and is really popular, as well as somewhat of a showboater.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (09.09.99)

I have to confess to NOT owning this album. However, I have heard it many times and I think it is quite a weak effort. I do not agree that it works as an album, George. You need good individual songs to make a good album - of course if they gel even better. As you know I love the Stones and the bastardisation of "lets spend the night together" is too much for me to take - it is ok, but give me the STONES version anyday.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (11.09.99)

I still don't quite understand this rating system. You don't particularly care for this album, but it gets an eleven. Maybe it's just that I stink at math, or anything involving numbers. Anyway, here's my take on Alladin Sane:

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (26.09.99)

MMMMmmmm?.. as you know I am a massive fan of Bowie and have his entire catalogue, but this one does not cut the mustard with me. It seems to me it is made up with the rejects from Ziggy??. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing as Ziggy was and is class. 'Watch that man', the opening track, is decent as is 'drive in Saturday' and 'jean genie', but the rest are fillers. I think Bowie should have entered the Philly Soul phase after Ziggy?.. as this was one album too far (Diamond Dogs too of course). Oh and by the way I hate the cover of the stones' 'lets spend the night together'. Now where is hot rocks????.. I want class now!

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (31.12.99)

Oh, come on! This album rules! I'd give it an eight too but personally I place Bowie at a higher level than a three thus making this a much more worthwhile album than you (and especially these other folks) give it credit for. "Panic In Detroit" is sort of stupid but everything else is ace. "Watch That Man" has got to be one of the coolest glam songs Bowie ever wrote, and the Stones cover doesn't start to suck until he starts going into convulsions or something at the end. Then again....I haven't heard Ziggy yet, so who knows? Maybe my opinion of this will change! But for now, I love it!

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

"Oooooooh, who'll love Aladdin Saaaane?"

Wicked Nightmare <wickednightmare@hotmail.com> (31.05.2000)

Aladdin Sane is in my opinion one of Bowie's best albums, if not the best full stop, and unfortunately one of his most underrated. I don't really understand the buzz about Ziggy (come on ?? it's a good album, but not THAT good at all), but Aladdin Sane is just pure magic, the only song I don't love is 'Jean Genie', cause it's too repetitive. Apart from that, every song is a masterpiece, the title track, 'Panic in Detroit', 'Cracked Actor', 'Lady Grinning Soul', etc. all good !

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (14.12.2000)

You failed to see it's purpose? I too but this album was produced in 70-ies by David so it must have it's purpose! I thought much about it and this is what I figured out.

Wood Family <gkwood@ozemail.com.au> (26.01.2003)

First things first. I'm not going to mention puns or world wars whilst discussing this album. Anyway- this is ziggy under a magnifying glass circa; 'the rise of Z. Stardust', not the fall. It examines the extremes of sexual and popularity perversion which comes with fame. 'Watch That Man', seems like an outside observation from a real life party for me. Things like cracked actor allude to real life situations that Bowie is exaggerating into little Ziggy anectdotes. The two REAL ballads; 'Lady', 'Time' and 'Aladdin' are the masterpieces of the album. All showcase his singing voice and melodic panache. 'Lady', being the (most) overtly gay of the three, has Bowie sining in falsecetto one half of a line then normally the next. 'Aladdin' is excentuated by the piano solo. Mind you, not taking anything away from the actual bulk of the song. 'Time' - although alluded to by his Bowieship as a 'Gay' song- seems to only demonstrate itself as a wonderful song with its roots in caberet and with yet another perverted view of fame which Ziggy/David was experiencing at the time. 'Cracked Actor' is my favorite rocker- possibly becaue it fits so nicely in with the theme of the album. But then again it could just be because it sports an aggressive riff from Bowie (WHO WOULD HAVE CONCEPTED IT) and a wonderful idea running through it's lyrics. 'Panic' and 'Watch' also deserve honourable mention. Not that the other songs arent good.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I admit, it really took a while for this album to grow on me. I'm still not sure whether I bought it more for the cover or for the music... I'm actually going to say that I prefer the cover to the music inside, which isn't to say I hate the album, because I actually really like it... It's just a really really really great album cover.

Adrian Subrt <asubrt@houston.rr.com> (27.05.2004)

When I look for catharsis, I look for Aladdin Sane. I must conflict with your opinion on the rating of this album (although an album like this cannot truly be rated). This isn't a flame however, I have ample evidence as to why it should be a fourteen out of fifteen. All the songs, save two, on this album are either good ("Watch That Man", "Cracked Actor", "The Prettiest Star", and "Let's Spend The Night Together") or great ("Aladdin Sane (1913-1938-197?)", "Drive-In Saturday", "Time", and "The Jean Genie"). Of the other two, one is an average song (by no means bad), and one is a masterpiece.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (24.09.99)

Call me predictable, but I, like most Bowie fans, would rate it much lower. Sure, he covers some good songs, but they're lousy versions! I would rather listen to an actual Who or Kinks album anyday! The only piece that doesn't make me cringe is "See Emily Play" - you're right about that one. It takes Barrett's lovely melody out of the jarring instrumental context that made the original so twisted (but still good!), and turns it into an almost accesible tune. I think it was even a hit single!

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

What makes Pin-Ups so atrocious is not that Bowie covers a bunch of old songs (although going by the evidence of his track record of covers on previous albums - "Let's Spend The Night Together," "It Ain't Easy" (the best of them), and "Fill Your Heart" - I nominate that he should forevermore be banned from covering other people's songs.  But nooo, he just HAD to go fuck up "Across The Universe," didn't he?  Thanks for nothing, David), but he does them so badly.  What's most shocking is the SOUND.  Remember that amazing opening *CRRRUNNCHH* of "Watch That Man" from Aladdin Sane?  That was rock 'n' f-ing roll, man!  You'd think that, having figured out how to sound like that, they'd at least be able to duplicate the sound for Pin-Ups.  But no, you won't find ANYTHING remotely like that here, not even on "Where Have All The Good Times Gone" (most people's choice for best song), just this flimsy guitar sound.  There's no meat behind it, confound it all!  So the only really good songs are those that don't rely on guitar. "Sorrow," for example.  Lots of people hate this song, but I quite love it, with a very graceful arrangement and - for once on the album - understated playing.  Other than those two, there's what, "See Emily Play?"  'Tis alright, but I know Syd Barrett, Syd Barrett was a friend of mine, and YOU, David Bowie, are no Syd Barrett!  Furthermore, I thought "Shapes Of Things" had to be the worst song ever written - or at least close - for the longest time, because all I had heard was this version.  Thank God my buddy sent me mp3's of both the Jeff Beck and the Yardbirds versions as therapy, or else I'd hate that song forever.  This is it: the worst studio album Bowie put out in the Seventies: 3/10.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (11.01.2001)

A fatal misstep?!! In my opinion - no. I consider it to be a really wise move. Why? Just look, this album should have felt strange in 1973 but now it doesn t sound like cover album. I ll try to explain. Answer one question do you know anything about Duncan, Farley, Davies, Berns (sorry, I don t know his name for sure polygraph in my inlay is too bad to recognize whether he is Bems or Berns+), Arnold, Vanda, Feldman, Goldstein and etc.? Yeah, me too. Now, in 2001, Pinups sounds just like Bowie s album and it s not bad at all!!! This is just old good rock n roll (sometimes a little bit punkish or psychedelic, though). Yes, there re standouts 'See Emily play' (that s rare case when I like the cover more than original) and The Who s numbers but even they are played in David s style. And as for Mick Ronson, he s in great form here the guitar work is awesome. Plus, don t forget that he plays piano here, too. I wonder why David replaced him by Alomar later+

David Goodwin <ksg1-2@yifan.net> (28.12.2001)

Just re-listened to this album after ages of ignoring it...believe it or not, it was my *first* Bowie purchase (because I wanted to hear what his version of 'See Emily Play' sounded like). Frankly, I don't think that particular track is all that wonderful--the voices on the chorus really annoy me--but some of the other selections are excellent, especially in the way he rearranges some. 'Friday on my Mind' is naff, as is 'Shapes of Things'...quite nice. But altogether unsatisfying, and some of the other tracks serve no purpose (why cover those two Pretty Things songs, barely rearrange them, and not try to recapture any of the originals' energy?)

Stephen Rutkowski <a_saucerful@hotmail.com> (05.12.2003)

'Friday on my Mind' is a very popular song here in Australia. Popular meaning it is played at least once a day on the oldies station. A couple of years ago it won some competition for being the best Australian song last century. (Not that it had much competition - 'Eagle Rock' by Daddy Cool? 'It's a Long Way to the Top' by AC/DC? 'Khe San' by Cold Chisel?)

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (12.02.2000)

Sorry to fit into your conception of this record instead of finding the same middle ground you did, but I LOVE this album. The piano ballads may be a little dull, but not nearly as much as the ones before this album (though at this juncture I have not yet heard Hunky Dory)--plus, every other song rules! "1984" especially-- why is it that the funk songs that weren't on Young Americans, the funk album, are the best ones? Anyway, this is a really interesting album despite what some might say. I'd give it a nine. That's out of ten. In fact, let me establish right here that I'm not using the 15-point system in my reader comments-- I tend to switch between the two and it's getting confusing.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

First of all, George, sitting on the fence is a lot more dangerous than it is safe; remember what Hamlet said about poor Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were caught in bewteen "the pass and fell incensed points of two great opposites?" (Aye, aye, m'lord; remember thee though, what hath befall'n the mighty opposites themselves - G. S.)

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

No, it doesn't suck, but it's never done much for me. "Rebel Rebel" is the highlight for most people - however, I've always found it way too stupid and repetetive. The best songs for me are the title track, "Big Brother," and "1984." The rest are awfully slow and boring. I couldn't give the album more than a six.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (13.01.2001)

This one is my favorite Bowie's album ever! I've listened to it more times than to even Station to station or later experimental records. Yes, Bowie is really serious here and that sounds good. Finally we see here some songs put in one. I mean 'Sweet thing/ Candidate/ Sweet thing (reprise)', of course. In my opinion, these three tracks are the best moment on the record. Really, I adore 'Candidate' with its changing melody in the middle. Lyrics are very good, too. I enjoy listening to how word 'sweet' changes to 'cheap'...

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

Okay, it's early in the morning up here in Canada but I'm going to take my time with this one because everything that I've ever read about this album has given it kind of a bum rap. Then again, I'm one of those people who cherishes 1984 and other "soul-crushing" art like Lou Reed's Berlin as the height of creative achievement. I just finished up writing an english essay on nihilism in Beckett's Endgame, too, so I'm kind of in the mood. Really, though, this album is, above all else, just incredibly moving. If it weren't for 'Rebel Rebel' and 'Rock and Roll with Me' it would flow as well as Ziggy. As it stands, it's still a brilliant collection of songs. I disagree, though, about the actual strength of particular songs. I don't really think that any of them are particularly amazing on their own, as is the case with most Bowie albums, which is why his greatest hits collections are always so shitty (does anyone actually buy those? I mean seriously?). I think I read an old Rolling Stone review of this album that criticized it as being nonsensical masturbatory fantasies or something, but then, they also panned Berlin so badly when it first came out that they felt obliged to write a revised review in the next issue. Has that initial bad review dogged the general opinion of this album ever since? Who knows. HMV still doesn't sell any T. Rex albums except Electric Warrior since it yeilded the band's only American hit. But I digress. More time to bash the music industry later. I think the main problem is just that people aren't quite sure how to categorize this album. Is it glam? Well, no, not really. "Philly Soul"? Certainly not. Motivated? Yes. Bowie played close to all the instruments on this album, the only time in his career he did that. If that isn't motivated I don't know what is. This review made no sense, did it? Oh well. I guess you just either like the album or hate it. Or you just buy a greatest hits package with 'Rebel Rebel' right beside 'Let's Dance' (shudder). Oh, right. As kind of a side note, 'We Are the Dead' is also about 1984. It's a line from the book. Also, doesn't the album cover kick ass? Impossible to get as a poster. But wait... Do I REALLY want a giant, naked, half-dog, mullet-wearing David Bowie plastering my wall? Maybe just for shock value.

Brett Collins <collins4u@worldnet.att.net> (15.07.2003)

(Call me crazy...but I think Diamond Dogs is one of Bowie's best albums. On your song by song analysis, I pretty much agree, except that I find 'Sweet Thing' to be one of the hightlights. The chorus is just about the coolest thing ever ('boys...boys...it's a sweet thing...") and the whole operatic atmosphere really soars. I agree with you on the bonus version of 'Candidate', it's real good stuff. I would have preferred the full version of it on the album instead of the 'Sweet Thing' suite.

Adrian Subrt <asubrt@houston.rr.com> (07.07.2004)

Finally, the moment has come when Bowie comes to his senses and dismisses the hangers-on, or the "Spiders from Mars" as the proletariat fans would have you call them. Although they did have some very high moments (Aladdin Sane, for instance), David Bowie does not need semi-talented back-up instrumentalists, he needs total artistic control over his creations. You can tell from the album cover that this is going to be a newer, more thought-provoking David Bowie (unless it scares you away first... coward). None of the false optimism showcased on Hunky Dory ('Kooks, for example) rears its ugly head here. 'We Are The Dead', Bowie says. Indeed.

Jason Saenz <jsaenz@sagetelecom.net> (13.08.2004)

Diamond Dogs is pretty good, I'm not much of a Bowie album owner but I found out that Bowie got Aynsley Dunbar to play drums on most of this album so i decided to give it a try. "1984" is the best track here, I dont understand why you gave that place to "Diamond Dogs" but anyway every mind is a planet. At first I wasnt really that impressed with the album because I didnt listen to the 1st track until like after a month, when I did listen starting from track 1 then I came to 1 conclusion: Bowie was really a madcap (in a good way), and he still is but now he loves dollars and cents more than anything.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (10.12.2000)

What a wonderful playlist .... and what awful performance...We all know that Bowie's voice sucks if he sings more than three songs without rest and that he had tonns of problems while recording his albums or singles (just take acoustic version of 'Ziggy Stardust' as an example). That's why the idea of giving a concert is foolish and cranky. Still we face this awful album and I want to make little comment. Firstly, the idea of remaking songs is again foolish. If the first two songs escaped the lot of being remaked, the others (all 18 songs!!!) suffer from it VERY much. What happened to 'Moonage daydream' (at first it seemed to me that Bowie became deaf because his vocal didn't fit song at all!!!), 'Changes' (where's that wonderful hook in the beginning?), 'Aladdin sane', 'Jean Genie' (band plays only on chorus, killing the song by it), 'Cracked actor' (sax? SUCKS!!!), 'Diamond dogs' (lack of instruments), 'Width of the circle' and 'Time'? They are all ruined.... Only song which receives something from new performance is 'Watch that man' (though, wonderful hook in the beginning is deleted). David live is the only live album Bowie had ever produced as I know. Is it going to be called his best live album, I ask you.

<guskov@landia.ru> (29.11.2002)

Awful? No! Unpredictable, brilliant, terrific! Unusual perfomance of these great songs only underlines its charme! Funky, real funky, dopey band, covering classic tracks of pseudo-real Androgyn! Bowie laughs at all these patethic stuff of "Rock-star". Very progressive album! Compare it with Stage. You`ll get, that they both are united by the idea of non-trivial live approach. Try to get, what David wanted you to hear in it and...take a moan!

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

God, I've only heard part of this album, and it wasn't my own doing, since I actually walked into a record store that had it playing. Recognizing Bowie's voice but not the song, I went up and asked what it was. When he told me I realized that I was listening to 'Jean Genie'; it was so mutilated that I didn't even recognize it. I felt pretty bad, too, because it was the guy at the counter who owned it and was playing it and I cringed and went, "Isn't this supposed to be the worst Bowie album ever?" But he liked it, so what do I know. The boys always seem to have very different opinions about Bowie than I do.

Alexander Zaitsev <zaitsev@perm.ru> (04.06.2003)

I made a mistake of buying this album yesterday Ugh, I really lament the wasted money. David Live is so bad that it easily beats Earthbound at being the worst live album ever. I've never seen good songs so ruthlessly butchered and flayed. There are skeletons here, not songs. A graveyard of an album, eh? I don't think I'll ever buy Stage after this one.

Alik Zubr <alikzubr@yahoo.com> (20.06.2003)

And what do I see? I see that Bowie has made a magnificent, titanic, unbelievable job of completely transforming each and every one of these twenty tracks into something completely different from their original status. At the least, you gotta give him credit for that; David Live holds my personal record as 'most original live album ever recorded'. I guess the critics who bashed this record were nothing but a bunch of milk-sucking, brainwashed pups. They'd be much happier off with the studio tracks with overdubbed applause. Sheez! We've already heard 'unconventional' Bowie before; let us now turn around with the man and see how well does 'conventional' Bowie work. The new versions of songs, no matter how much people might hate them, are just harmless fun. Inferior to the originals? Well, certainly so, but the important thing is, they’re different from the originals. Think of them as different songs, if you wish, and suddenly you'll be feeling a whole lot better.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

This is a great Bowie album. It is one of those rare albums which successfully captures a mood and runs with it from the opening track to the last note of the final song. Obviously 'Young Americans' is the track we all know, but what about 'Somebody Up There Likes Me'? I love this song, but I know George disagrees. (sorry, George!). It is really well put together and has a rolling energy which I find astonishing. In this respect it reminds me of the Stones' 'Sympathy'......... if you get my drift. An 8.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (31.12.99)

Of course it's stupid, badly-arranged soft soul, but it has its moments. Still....what the hell? "Fame" is his most elaborate arrangement ever?!?!?...I don't get it. The song just sounds like a jumbled, badly-written, plodding dinosaur of an ugly song and I have no idea how it hit #1 at all. The title track's arrangement is much better (Bowie really pulled off the soul sound there), and while nothing else on the album sticks out, except maybe "Fascination" because it has a catchy chorus, nothing else is blatantly awful except for the horrible "Across The Universe" cover. I doubt that I'll ever throw this on much, and it's not a great album by any means, but it's still okay. Somewhere between a six and a seven.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

A lot of people defend this album vehemently, but I still think that it's not very good. The title track and "Fame" (why does Rich hate that song? It's one of the coolest funk tunes ever outside of P-Funk!) are both very first rate, but the rest is the sort of soft rock that everyone would bash were it on a Tina Turner record or Dark Side Of The Moon (oh, yeah - I'm the only one who hates that album). I give it a four.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (14.12.2000)

I don't care much for this one but nevertheless I rate this one a little higher than you. In your review you talk only (well, better to say: 'praise only two songs') about 'Young Americans' and 'Fame' forgetting little gem called 'Fascination'. This is a quite strong song with good rythm and lyrics, too. Out of other 5 songs I liked only 'Across the universe' and maybe 'Win' (though, I can't remember the melody right now (only thing I remember about it is that I liked it few weeks ago)). Others are completely forgetable and boring. But because of mentioned songs I give Young Americans 7/10.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

This album really sucks. Who wants MORE David Live? No one. It's stunts like this that sometimes make me embarassed to be a Bowie fan.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

Yeah, I agree, this is indeed a transitional album and what a whopper it is! 'TVC15' is a really cool and catchy song, reminiscent of those on Young Americans and the bass playing on 'golden years' is to die for. My favourite track, though, is 'Wild is the Wind' - this contains Bowie's best vocal of all time and has recently been covered by George Michael. Depending on your opinion, this is high praise or a slap in the face - I go for the praise! A 9.5

Richard C. Dickison <rdick@mag.com> (13.12.99)

When I first started really listening to this guy, when I first heard something that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (10.01.2000)

Umm erm uuuh....how can I explain this album....I know. How about this fact. I bought it two days ago and I've listen to it five times, with no other albums inbetween. How's that for you? In contrast, I got Young Americans on Christmas and I've only listened to it twice. GODTHISALBUMISFRICKINWONDERFULANDILOVEITANDTHEREISNOTHINGBADATALLTOSAYABOUTIT!!!!!

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (05.04.2000)

It's not the side effects of the cocaine; I'm thinking that it must be Bowie's best album ever.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

I don't like this one as much as most do, but I still think it's a really great album. The more soulish stuff is actually memorable, and the more expirimental songs are really good, too. "TVC 15" is my favourite, followed by "Stay." A really, really high eight. Maybe a high nine.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

More than any other rock concert in the entire world, I wish I'd seen Bowie live on the Station to Station tour. Wouldn't it be great? It would be a moment in his life that I remember better than he does... Hm. I like that. That was clever.

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (08.02.2000)

The first time I heard this I was absolutely convinced it was a 10/10 and possibly Bowie's finest album. With a little perspective it's managed to drop a bit, down to a 9, but it's still remarkably formidable and Exhibit A in any case being made for Bowie the artist. But before my comments, here's a lot of important background, since George seems to be lacking it and since I'm the first to post on it.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (12.02.2000)

I agree that this isn't nearly as catchy as Heroes, yet the song-based side of the album is more intriguing and Eno-ish. Especially "Speed Of Life"--what a cool instrumental! Gotta love that descending synth. Anyway, I enjoy this album quite a bit, even though the ambient half, like you said, doesn't deliver the -ambience- of the Heroes ones-- nothing's as airy as "Moss Garden" or as spooky as "Sense Of Doubt" here. A very high eight for this one, nevertheless.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

Instrumentals are cool, but the expirimental "pop" songs are sort of half-baked. They still aren't bad, though - I particularly love "Always Crashing In The Same Car." I've never been a fan of "Sound And Vision," though, and the entire album just sounds a little unsure of itself. A high eight.

<elnunez@bellsouth.net> (20.12.2000)

He's lived all over the world, he's left every place, and he's always crashing in the same fucking car!  What a guy!  Low is one of Bowie's most beautifully crafted albums, despite Eno's tendency to go a little overboard with the latest technology of the rising New Wave craze.  For instance, he could have toned down a bit with those stupid  Intellivisionesque bubble effects on "What in the World" and the twisty-twirly noises in "Always Crashing in the Same Car."

<ProzachV@aol.com> (10.03.2001)

When I first heard this album, I thought Bowie must have seriously screwed up, and this crazy Eno guy must be largely responsible. Bloody Germans and their crappy electronica. I mean, starting the album with an instrumental? But, wait...oh, there's a nice melody in it, and if you concentrate the backbeat is kinda nice. Anyway, then there's this "Breaking Glass." The opening notes sound BAD! I turned down the volume the first time I heard those nasty chords. Then the voice and everything else kicked in, and I realized that that was the point. The other vocal on the first side, "What in the World," and "Sound and Vision" were interesting pieces of synthpop. I liked "What in the World" especially. It's probably my favorite track on the album, followed closely by "Art Decade." (Funny thing...My favorite track on heroes is "Beauty and the Beast," followed closely by "The Secret Life of Arabia." Ho hum.)

Mark Neil Patterson <mnp@st-andrews.ac.uk> (21.03.2001)

First, I'd just like to say that I really respect and admire this site. I disagree with a lot of your opinions (and I genuinely believe you're wrong about post-70s music and it's apparent 'lack of worth', as you seem to see it. There's been some fabulous music produced since then... of course a group like the Pixies or R.E.M. aren't seriously going to rival Dylan's best works, but I'd take a good album by either of those groups over at least a third of Dylan's output, and the same could be said for post-1972 Stones. Anyway...

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

This was one of the first Bowie albums I bought. I went in a messed up order, sort of. I bought Ziggy then Heathen and then this one. When I was buying it I had the only good HMV experience I've ever had. The guy at the store raved about the album when I asked if they had it, saying how he had it on vinyl and everything. Of equal note, he was the only person over 17 working there. I've since gone back and asked if they had any Lou Reed albums only to have the girl at the counter ask me who he was... Like, com'on. It's not like I was alive for this stuff either but I at least know about it!

Palash Ghosh <london1963@msn.com> (27.01.2004)

As a dedicated enemy of avant-garde music (metal, industrial, techno, electronica, etc.), I viewed David Bowie's Low record with trepidation - but, since Bowie always intrigued and fascinated me, I figured I HAD to listen to this record. And "low" and behold, I loved it. but with a proviso. I have never (and probably never will) buy any record put out by such acts as Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, Chemical Brothers, etc.; but David Bowie experimenting with these kind of sounds is something else entirely. He had already (arguably) established himself as an enormously talented and successful mainstream rock-pop musician -- for him to dive into the weird unknown of Berlin-imbued techno sounds was very admirable and nothing short of revolutionary. While Low will never rank as my favorite Bowie records, it is a testament to his evolution and willingness to reformulate himself.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (28.08.99)

This thing just peaks all over the place, David Bowie knew he had found something interesting in the early electronica and went on to produce an epic and he did just that. You have got the big 70's three going all at once here, Robert (watch me total this bassline) Fripp, David (Sound and Vision) Bowie, and our father of techno, ambient, electronica, Eno. It's just makes you want to see these guy's in concert. Anyway this really is only part two (and the best) of the three albums that make this Bowie period exciting. I personally did not like David in his glam role as much as I love the Berlin trilogy. I've always felt his helping with Mott the Hoople, All The Young Dudes proved he could produce better than doing it himself. He left the hollywood style and began his experimentation of crossing the German electronic movement with the american rock which I found much more entertaining. Anyway even David said that Hero's was a bow to what he saw as the end of the 70's rock age, and here is the start of the electronic age with David firmly in the lead. Ziggy and Diamond Dogs was only the rough begining, this was the real meat of Mr. Bowie's career. This wonderful ride would'nt end till the last note of Scary Monster's.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (28.08.99)

For one, I could not agree more. This is his peak for me - I only rated Changesbowie higher in my reviews because it's more accesible. But this... hoo, boy, this one takes the cake. And eats it, too.

Mike DeFabio <defab4@earthlink.net> (28.08.99)

I agree totally. Almost totally. I don't agree that this is his best album (that award goes to Ziggy Stardust) or even his second best album (that award goes to Station to Station) but this is definitely his third best album. Most of side one is great, but 'Sons of the Silent Age' never really grabbed me that much, and the live version of 'Blackout' is much better than the studio version. And I even like the ambient stuff. I'm usually not too crazy about background music, but this ain't background ambient music. This is ambient music you LISTEN to. And parts of it are dang creepy.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (29.08.99)

PS... I was trying not to get into the Kraftwerk connection because it is controversial, yes they could be boring guys, but look at who and what they influenced. Talk about your underdogs. Actually David and Eno admitted being heavily influenced by guess who, Meroder and that little single 'Love To Love You', remember Dona Summer? IIIIIII Looove to looove youuuu baaaaby, oh sorry. Anyway, those gnomes of electronica were there slowly bleeping away even in this epic, then take another look at Blondie and their Parallel Lines album. hmmm the bleep goes on.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (09.09.99)

I'll keep this one short. For me this is his best album of the seventies. Much more interesting than Ziggy and Hunky Dory. He was on such an experimental roll here, he must have known that he could not keep on with the quality of material he was producing (obviously not, as he would have quit on top!!!!!).

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (19.11.99)

I agree 99%, the 1% residing in the fact that I'd give it a 13 instead of a 12. No wait, make that 90%, because I love "Sons Of The Silent Age" and "Blackout," unlike you. Yeah, Bowie's "rapping" in the latter is a bit awkward but the rest of the song more than makes up for it! In fact, I love all of the songs on here. Why, then, does it not get a full 15? Well, I'm sure that Bowie has done better (I still need to get the rest of his work) and while I love each one of these ten songs, they're not completely mind-blowingly great. They're just consistent. "Beauty And The Beast" is particularly great; an awesome pomp-synth-disco rocker if there ever was one.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

A magnificent, sprawling and diverse album. In terms of an intro to Bowie's work in the 70's, this is the album to get. 'Heroes', of course, is the standout track - it's hopeless romanticism taking your breath away, but I do have a soft spot for 'Joe the Lion'. A stupid title for a song, but WHAT a song. I disagree with George and think that 'Sons of the Silent Age' is a great, moody and dark song and should be appreciated more. The Eno contributions are good -a vast improvement on those in Low. A 9.5

Jeff Blehar <jdb3@jhu.edu> (02.02.2000)

While Heroes isn't my favorite Bowie album, it's rapidly risen to near the top of the heap (behind Station To Station and Scary Monsters) based on its own unique ambience. What makes this album and Low so special is that they're beautiful haunting mood pieces. George is dead-on when he pegs the instrumental tracks on Heroes as being a sound collage; whereas Low's (utterly breathtaking) instrumentals were chiefly melodic, these are ambient works more in the vein of Eno's Music For Airports than his Another Green World. Of the four of them, only "V-2" Schneider" has any melodic interest, and that's chiefly offset by the remarkable syncopated "off"-beat of the song - it's harder to hum along to than you'd think, because the chord changes come at all the wrong times. Brilliant! By the way, "V-2 Schneider"'s name is a nod towards Kraftwerk's Florian Schneider, of whom Bowie was a big fan.

Jeff Melchior <Jeffmoncheri@aol.com> (26.12.2000)

Frustrating album. Here, on what is supposed to be one of his least commercial albums, Bowie has recorded half a record full of his most compelling, accessable and down-damnright catchy music. So, to be honest with you, all the Eno-onics on the second side don't do squat for me when I'm clamoring for more of what was on the first side. To be fair, maybe this was all Bowie had in him when it came to making actual music rather than evocative sould palettes.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (23.12.2002)

I 'll agree with Mr. Greenstein -- The title track is his most powerful song ever. One of the few Bowie songs that is emotionally powerful and resonant. Which was a problem when I first heard the rest of the album, which just can't touch the song. It's weird, and full of Dave's usual artsy detachment.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

Going to keep this one short. I took the time to read the other reviews and no one wrote anything especially objectionable, so... I'm not too inspired to tell everyone who already knows (or at least SHOULD know) how great this album is. But if you ever read this, George, you should know that I actually bought this album on YOUR say so. Seriously. It was the next to last Bowie album I ever bought because I was told it sounded all "eighties", which I knew was CERTAINLY something to avoid. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I don't own a single album by ANYONE from the years 1981-1993, except for the Ninja Turtles soundtrack which was given to me as a joke.

No reader comments yet.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (15.09.99)

You must be joking. Lodger is a sellout? Have you even heard Let's Dance? I mean, sure this stuff is dancey, but it's not mainstream in the least! There are still wierd, Eno-fied synths all over it, and the cliches of song construction are still being ripped wide open.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

A massive let down and one of the lowest points in his career. After Low and Heroes, he could do no wrong and then he came up with this!! aghhhh! The only decent track on this record is 'DJ' - and that is not a Bowie classic. Do yourself a favour - give this a miss and get Low. It is far superior. A 6 and that is being kind.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (22.01.2000)

This is an okay album...nothing bad, yet nothing which comes close to anything on Heroes save "Look Back In Anger." "Red Sails," "Fantastic Voyage," "Boys Keep Swinging," and "D.J." are very well-written songs, but how come Eno didn't produce them like he did on the last album? You know, the chaotic full wall-of-sound vibe which made "Beauty And The Beast" and "Joe The Lion" such a treat? Some of these songs could've really used it! I honestly would've preferred another side of ambient soundscapes instead of four or five songs which don't work very well, making this the definite weakest of the Berlin trilogy. Still! Despite its fallacies, I'd still rate this much higher than you did, somewhere around a high seven or a low eight. Plus, I agree with Ben...how is this a sellout?

Florence Gadeyne <fgadn@wanadoo.fr> (16.05.2000)

This record is a little bit rambling. there are good stuff here but it doesn't work as an album. Bowie travelled a lot before doing this record and you can hear it maybe in a too obvious way. Almost each song can be associated to a different country. Did you know that 'Move on' comes from a mistake of handling in the studio? they were listening old tracks and one of them has been played 'à l'envers'  (contrariwise). This song was 'All the young dudes'. Try the experiment if you can. It's disturbing how true it is. And after that, you will always hear 'All the young dudes' in the backing vocals of 'Move on'.

Zhora <u_zhora@rambler.ru> (22.05.2000)

It is our deep persuasion that the most significant number on the album is "Night Flight". An astonishing song, stylish and spooky. As for the much praised "D. J.", it's just an absolutely ordinary, unsuccessful number. Thank you. [Translated from Russian by yours truly - G. S.].

Pirjo Kling <pirjo.kling@tutka.net> (25.05.2001)

I gotta say that I really like tis' album. I use t find it very very colourful. A Travel book of David's fantastic voyage thru' the seventies, wild summarium about the feelings of the decade, full of all kinds of songs -mos of them quite more reduced than the ones in "Heroes" but also more interesting than those one's.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I was VERY hesitant to buy this one since it's been almost universally panned. But that's probably just because Low and "Heroes" were just SO good. This album isn't really bad on its own. It's not GREAT, either, but... There are a few highlights. DJ's good and so is 'Boys Keep Swinging', even though the video's better. Oh yeah! That reminds me. Just this evening I saw about 20 minutes of that movie Victor/Victoria. You know? That one where the girl pretends to be a man pretending to be a woman? Anyway, there's this bit where she takes off her wig and everyone is supposed to "realize she's a man" and so she does it and she's got this kind of reddish slicked back hair underneath and my dahling mother remarks, "She looks like David Bowie." Isn't that precious? And it was just great because she really did; I was thinking the exact same thing. Just like at the end of the 'Boys Keep Swinging' video when he pulls off the wig. That was what reminded me. Why is it my reviews always turn into anecdotes? Whatever, though. I would give this album a much higher rating. It's better than Scary Monsters (which DOES start to sound a little too eighties for my liking) and better than most of Bowie's 90's stuff. At least it's interesting to listen to. An album like Hours might be less offensive but its just too boring. I'd give this album at least a 7. I really like his vocals on here for some reason.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (04.09.99)

Scary monsters, and supercreeps, keep me running, running scared (boom boom boom). The last scary Bowie to really howl, it's all over baby blue from here on.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (08.09.99)

In response to Richard C Dickison - "new wave" was already a music term used in 1977, a full three years before this album. So Bowie did not "peg" new wave before it started. Talking Heads had done it years before.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (12.09.99)

Ben, The Talking Heads did not integrate their World Beat sound till the year of this album. I am refering to 'Remain in Light' which was based on the work done for the album My Life In The Bush Of Ghost by David Byrne and Brian Eno which came out the next year which contained samples and set the tone for keyboard and syqencer beat driven music to come. Much of the keyboard or guitar driven music before this album was Kraftwerk and Ultravox what I term primitive New Wave/ Electronica and 1980 gave us Peter Gabriel's Third album the one with 'Games Without Frontiers', Devo's Freedom Of Choice, and The Pretenders first album. Yes, the term New Wave was used before Scary Monsters and we have Blondie and their Parallel Lines (1978) album to thank more than those Talking Heads, thank you very much Debbie. But it was this year that Electronica started to mature and it was highly influenced by Brian Eno who had already completed his work with David Bowie for the Berlin Trilogy (1976-1978). Yes, you could say that someone else created New Wave but David Bowie was highly involved in making it what it was to become.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

I really cannot understand why this album is given (albeit halfhearted) praise. It is really one dimensional and continues the unimaginative songwriting which Lodger started. THe title track is not that good and most of the other songs are fillers. Not my favourite Bowie album by any stretch. He did come back with Let's Dance, though. A 5.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (22.01.2000)

Lots of neat, poppy songs litter this album, in particular "Ashes To Ashes"...not as grandiose a song as "Space Oddity" but more catchy. The same goes for "Teenage Wildlife" as compared to "Heroes"-- it's not as good but manages to hold up on its own anyway. There isn't really a bad song on this whole album (even though my first listen left me less than impressed) so I'd give it a nine! I'm not sure if you said that "Fashion" is a "Fame" followup or not (I don't have the review in front of me at the moment) but let me say this anyway....it's easily fifty quadrillion times better!

Florence Gadeyne <fgadn@wanadoo.fr> (16.05.2000)

He must have broken one or two vocal cords on that 'free step to HEAVEN' or 'SITUATION' ! To me, 'It's no game- part 1' is kind of a revolt song by opposition to 'part 2' which is a fatalist one. I highly prefer 'part 1'. I like the 7/8 bars intro and outro of 'Up the hill backwards' and also the bicycle bell. But it's a strange song, yes it sounds catchy but listen to the drums they really seem to slack. And the title track! Gee! my dog must be a scary monster 'cause he barks just like that! (except he doesn't do it in rythm). I agree with you, George, about this album. The beginning of 'Because you're young' sounds like a 80's Iggy Pop's song. 'Space Oddity' is not a really worthy bonus track but I like the silences on it, especially the interesting 12" blank where the rocket 's supposed to lift off. And it shows how beautiful is this song even without orchestration. But contrary to you, I like 'Kingdom come' and its 'boom - tchac boom boom - tchac boom boom - tchac boom boom boom tchac boom boom - and also that very bowish thing : 'wall's a mile hîîîîîîîîîgh'.

Greg Pringle <pengrui@163bj.com> (21.08.2000)

The Japanese woman is not reciting something in Japanese 'over and over', she is reciting the lyrics to the song in Japanese.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (08.01.2003)

I was a bit prejudiced against this album because of his attempts to follow up two of his greatest songs, especially "Teenage Wildlife". WAY too blatant a clone of the classic"Heroes", I must agree. But I only have a problem with the lyrics of "Ashes to Ashes". How could Major Tom become a junkie out in space? Dumb. But the weird music is pretty cool. The weakest track, though, is the Tom Verlaine cover "Kingdom Come". Verlaine was an obscurity who only really appealed to snooty rock critics or artsy types like Dave.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I REALLY didn't go for this one first time around. I mean, I'd heard that a lot of people really cherish 'Teenage Wildlife' but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that song worked. It just seemed to mish-mashed, like a thousand different sections all pasted togather. I've since come to like it, but I'm almost embarassed by the fact.

<RAILGUITAR@aol.com> (11.05.2004)

One of Bowie's best, a 10.

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (25.09.99)

Well, I guess you better start looking to Peter Gabriel for intelligent music after this album. David Bowie knew how to throw a damn catchy wake. Yeah, let's call this album the celebration of the end. So put on your red shoes and dance the blues. Sometimes moments of greatness show through but David really made his money on this album. He even made an Iggy Pop song sound important and interesting.

Simon Hearn <Simon.Hearn@west-lindsey.gov.uk> (13.12.99)

I find this record to be one of this best. It shows his adaptable qualities, he could still write classy material and he was in control of another musical genre. 'Modern Love', 'China Girl' and 'Lets Dance' are giants of tracks and I can't think of many other albums by anyone that start off with three such massive hits. Don't lets forget 'gasoline' and 'shake it' - two fantastic funky and uplifting tracks. This record is vastly underrated. A 9.5

Florence Gadeyne <fgadn@wanadoo.fr> (16.05.2000)

It's hard to rate this album. The 3 well-known singles are brilliant (for 80's songs), I'd give them a 8/10; one song is ok: 'Cat people' (even if the gloomy version he made for the movie is more valuable), I give it a 6; and the rest is ... well?... 4      So let's see: ( 3x8 + 6 + 4x4 )/8 = 5.75. We agree, it's a 6/10.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

Okay, so "China Girl" is a great song. Whoopee. He wrote it in 1977, back when he still had ideas. The rest of the music is either passable (the title track) to boring and pointless (why he had to cut off the intro to "Cat People" that was on the sountrack version is beyond me). Oh, and I have no idea how a man responsible for a piece of crap like "Shake It" could put a fantastic song like "Modern Love" on the same album. And "Under Pressure" rules, so don't knock it anymore. A five.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (25.12.2000)

Of course, it's a letdown to Scary monsters but not so big as some people think. Let's start from the fact that album has no real purpose (exept making you dance) and here we have only 8 songs. I don't want to say that number of the songs describes the quality of the album (example: Thick as a brick) but agree that the number of songs here isn't usual for David.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (27.12.2001)

It seems David was a bit strapped for material at this point, with two remakes ("China Girl" was originally on Iggy Pop's The Idiot, I believe; the first version of "Cat People" was produced by Donna Summer disco guy Giorgio Moroder for the soundtrack to the movie) and a cover ("Criminal World" was recorded by a group called Metro). But it's just a fun record, with a lot of variety, very solid rhythm section playing, and great guitar work. Vaughan's work, placed in this rather weird context, is really marvelous to hear. His vocals, too, show a lot of diversity, from the falsetto crooning of "Without You" to the weird Gestapo shouts of "Ricochet." I agree that "Shake it" is nothing but filler, and "Under Pressure" should not be a bonus track -- it's just doesn't belong. On the whole, though, the album straddles well the line between David's usual arty pretentiousness and commercial pop accessibility. Unfortunately, he couldn't repeat this formula successfully.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<RAILGUITAR@aol.com> (13.05.2004)

Amazing how people can get so polarized on this one. Well, I'll take the side that it's a great record, while noting how it sort of stands by itself when considering the entirety of Bowie's work.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (22.09.99)

Hard to believe it, but "Tonight" used to be a really good Iggy Pop song. But, being the bastard that he had become, David just HAD to take that one (and two others that were pretty good, as well), and turn them into lame, mindless, 80's "R &B," and I will never forgive him for it. Not even if his next album is as good as Rolling Stone claims it is - which, given their history of being wrong, is not very likely.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (25.01.2001)

Maybe I'm the only person who loves this album. Well, 'loves' is a too strong word, better to say: 'likes'. In fact, David isn't wasshed-up here. He's still a boy with guitar from backyard (in Bowie's case - saxophone). Songs are alright, too. There're only two weak spots - Beach boy's cover and 'Dancing with big boys'. Others are just fine. I have no kick against title track (and Tina Turner, too) or even 'Tumble And Twirl' (which, in my opinion, is great!).

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (22.11.99)

Five? That's a joke, right? This album is awful! And not because it's eighties pop - no, because it's bland, tuneless eighties pop. Sure, there are slight differences in between the songs, but if you have to listen "really close" to hear them, then they haven't really suceeded, have they? And you've got to listen to hear the melodies, too. I guess some of the riffs are okay, but you can come up with an awesome riff and still have a shitty song.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@mail.ru> (21.12.2000)

This one is a little better than Tonight. Though the idea of going back to roots doesn't sound good. This should be called the most average album ever produced. Really, nothing here can be dismissed as crap but these songs don't touch your heart either. Nothing to praise for, nothing to dismiss for. Well,maybe except only one song. I mean 'Zeroes' (going back to 'Heroes'?). I like it only because of the fact that it reminds me instrumental 'Greece' by George Harrison (actually, they have only one thing in familiar, actually. I mean the wonderful guitar chord that occurs only 3 times a song). To me it's just VERY average album. Very strange and interesting case, indeed. 6/10.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I previewed this once at the CD Exchange and couldn't make it through a single song. Really, George. A five? Do you really think this is fifty percent good?

<Wardo68@aol.com> (26.08.2000)

Now I am truly impressed! I could read your sight for hours, and I have and I will.

<Demail7@aol.com> (16.11.2002)

Is this just a legend, or was this an actual album put out by bowie&co.? He has done his best to hide it. Sometimes I think it is funny how many albums he has put out that is not in print anymore. But the man is filthy rich by rock star standards. Can you say damage control, kiddies?!

No reader comments yet.

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

Believe it or not, some people actually consider this his comeback. THIS? Bland, overproduced, soft jazz? Not for me, no sir. It has "Jump They Say" on it, and that's a great song, and the bonus track "Lucy Can't Dance" is a song that I really love for no reason, but the album stinks. A Morrisey cover? Instrumentals? A low four? Sounds right to me.

Greg Pringle <pengrui@163bj.com> (21.08.2000)

George, you must have been tired when you wrote this. How many times did you listen to the record, and by this I mean the music and not the background percussion machinery? (The required three, and I'm NOT going to have a fourth - G. S.). Not knowing anything about 90s dance music, I approached the album with a relatively open mind - as open as you could expect from a Bowie fan. And I have to say, I actually like this album. Why? Mainly for its sound and its atmosphere. I love 'The Wedding', 'Jump They Say', 'Nite Flights', 'Pallas Athena', 'Looking for Lester', and several other tracks. The bonuses are fantastic. The throbbing bass sounds are depressing (nothing like a deep menacing undertone to raise the tension level) and the repetitive nature of the songs is hypnotic and tense. Even the exultant 'The Wedding' is happiness a la Bowie, which is a kind of impacted, insecure happiness. On the other hand, the album is let down by precisely the songs that you prefer: 'I Know It's Going to Happen Someday', 'Lucy Can't Dance', and 'I Feel Free' are all quite terrible.

Sergey Zhilkin <sergey_jilkin@yahoo.com> (14.12.2000)

Oops... Actually I was waiting something more entertaining than this one even after reading you review. Why? Because I read some positive comments (on your homepage, too) on the net and even in Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 97 (really! Don't laugh - it's 100% true!). Besides, I know that it topped the chart. And what a disappointment!!! Actually, 'Black tie, white noise' is the third album in my hall of 'most unlistenable' albums. The first place took Electronic sound (George Harrison) and Sentimental journey (Ringo) is the second by now. Good company for David....Err, let's return to the album. Out of 14 songs I like only ONE ('like' here means 'can listen without throwing a cup of tea in my player') - it's 'The wedding'. Others are ruined by (can you imagine it!) David's vocal. Plus, as you've already said, Bowie invites you for a dance but do you need it? What if you're in bad mood and want to listen to some sentimental songs? And what if you NEVER want to dance? Ah, I'd give it 1 or 2... On overall scale. Awful album and awful stuff, too. Bowie fans! Go and buy Jesus Christ Superstar instead of this crap... Why JCS? Because it doesn't invite you for a dance. It MAKES you dance.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

I can at least stomach some of this so that's an improvement. I actually LIKE 'Jump They Say' so that, for me, rates this higher than any of his eighties output.

No reader comments yet.

Rose Littlehales <Rose.Littlehales@fylde.screaming.net> (13.04.2000)

Well yet again you've disapointed me,though I have to admit like David Bowie said on his 3 hour talk on BBC's Radio 2 for the last 3 weeks this would of been better on 2 seperate albums, but ather than that this is a catchy Album from 'Hot Filthy lesson' (sic! - G. S.) to 'We Shall Prick You'!  

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

It's pretty good if you can stomach Nine Inch Nails industrial garbage. You admit to hating NIN, so I can't see how you like it. I don't like NIN too much either, but I think that a few songs on there stand out from the blur. The title track has a cool melody, "Strangers When We Meet" is pretty, and "The Heart's Filthy Lesson" is just fantastic. I'd probably give this a seven - it's a type of music I don't much care for, but it's done well.

Greg Pringle <pengrui@163bj.com> (21.08.2000)

George, you're not being fair again. Perhaps you're fed up with listening to too many albums. This may not be a record to 'rave' about, but it's very listenable. Most of the songs are quite good, some very good, and I can't think of any that are 'bad' (the definition of 'bad' being that I suffer an uncontrollable desire to press the fast forward button). Compared with his 80s offerings, this is an excellent album. Also, you should have read the liner notes; it would have added something to the experience.

Anna Peppard <peppardl@post.queensu.ca> (02.03.2003)

Yeah, you should have read the liner notes. And although I admit the little seques wear on me after a while, I do like this album. Although, I wouldn't have bought it if it weren't Bowie. Isn't that honest of me? It sounded interesting, though, Bowie and Eno and concepts... And yeah, 'Hallo Spaceboy' is pretty awful. But I will say that it fits into the album. After the seque the drums sound really manacing. I usually just listen to the first drums to get that menacing tingle and then skip the rest. There's a lot of good stuff here, though, and I disagree that it should have been two albums, because then it just would have been more of a pain to skip through to the songs I actually really ENJOY. Like 'I Have Not Been to Oxford Town', or 'The Voyeur of Utter Destruction (As Beauty)'. Solid. I ENJOY these songs. Honestly.

apple555 <apple555@yandex.ru> (24.04.2003)

Hello, George.

Rich Bunnell <taosterman@yahoo.com> (19.10.99)

Since Bowie's albums were mostly out of print when I really tried to get into him about a year ago (now they're finally back in print on EMI so I'll make another attempt) this is pretty much the only full album of his I've heard. I'd give it the same rating as you once again (I have a feeling that I won't get into any major disagreements with you until you tackle the Police)....but "Dead Man Walking" his worst song ever?!?!? I can imagine if you wouldn't LIKE it, but worst song EVER? That's taking it far too far too far! I found it to be one of the only concise songs on the album! #1, of course, is "I'm Afraid Of Americans," but I rank that song right behind it!

Ben Greenstein <bgreenstein@nctimes.net> (23.06.2000)

Yes, I hate this crap. I agree with you on the five. This sounds so dated even three years after it's release - all those drum machines and schreeching guitars. A few songs stand out, but not much. "Little Wonder" sounds like a sort of half-assed Bowie song given trance arrangement (and it works, surprisingly!), and "I'm Afraid Of Americans" is a good song, for whatever reason. Somehow, it's become known as a collaboration with Trent Reznor (because he was in the video) instead of with Brian Eno (who actually cowrote it), and that pisses me off. Some of the other melodies are okay, but I don't drive myself nuts over them.

Elizabeth L. <slashqueen@hotmail.com> (03.11.2000)

For one thing, I think Earthling kicked ass. I love techno and Bowie took the genre and made it his own for as long as his attention span held out with it. Of course, I should also note that the first thing I ever heard of his was "Dead Man Walking" off The Saint soundtrack, so I guess I'm not what you'd call a bowie purist. I do like a lot of his earlier stuff though, sans the 80's.

Florence Gadeyne <fgadn@wanadoo.fr> (16.05.2000)

I really like 'Survive', 'Seven' and 'Thursday's child'. But the rest sounds like an average soundtrack (which it is in fact). Have you ever noticed that 'Brilliant adventure' was a rewritting of the saxophone line of 'Untitled n°1' (from The buddha of suburbia)?

Lady Storm <ladystorm@postmaster.co.uk> (21.06.2000)

Hi! I must say that I like this album of DB very much. Most of all I like songs: 'Seven', 'Something in the air', 'Survive', 'If I dreaming all my life'. In texts of songs before the song 'Seven' there is a word “July”. What does it mean? Who knows? I’m very interested, but I like to live a real life and not to dream my life.

Elizabeth L. <slashqueen@hotmail.com> (03.11.2000)

Hours scares me. It has modern production values, but it could have been ripped off of some early 70's BBC sessions and no one would notice the difference. That's not a good thing. If Madonna did that we'd accuse her of being unoriginal, but you're just like "hey, he's an old fart now, why not?" Why not? Okay, I'll admit that his long hair and hoodie on VH1's Storytellers made him a less convincing teenager than makeup and Japanese-designed theater costumes made him a convincing alien twenty years ago. But still! He has the ability to make some roof-raising music, and three years is not that big an age difference since Earthling. And you contradict yourself in your reviews: you say he's too much of a changling during your Earthling review and in your intro paragraph. And now you say that he's not changing enough? Make up your mind.

dasha <Ninazzz@mail.ru> (28.01.2001)

Well, as for me, I like all the songs from the Hours album. They are all just as great and, gorgeous, I think, like always! Well, boy - IT'S DAVID BOWIE!

lera <lerats@mail.ru> (27.01.2004)

It's one of my favourites, and one of the most serious and profound. I would be your slave - song-prayer - the best thing I've ever heard. "Give me peace of mind at last...and I would be your slave..."

<RAILGUITAR@aol.com> (18.05.2004)

Now this is a comeback if ever there was one.

<RAILGUITAR@aol.com> (26.04.2004)

I rank it the same as Heathen actually. More of a twin brother than a kid brother.

Ilya Nemetz <i_nemetz2@hotmail.com> (27.04.2004)

Interesting. I suppose I do agree with your review for the most part, it's just I'm much more impressed by Reality on general level than by any other Bowie album (both Heathen and classic period records included). Still, it's not easy to formulate my attitude towards this album verbally. Start with its being extremely consistent and totally even for the duration of first ten tracks. Objectively, I cannot name any highlights or, on the contrary, any low points here. Sure enough, personally, I tend to dislike 'Pablo Picasso' (alas, for no particular reason) while being quite fond of 'The Loneliest Guy' (the vocals), 'Looking For Water' (the lyrics/the atmosphere) and 'Days' (huh... the Bowieness), but then again, these are just my preferences. Now, in my opinion, 'Bring Me The Disco King', that monster of a track, done with such incredible taste and, I daresay, brilliance, overshines the rest of the material, de! cent as it is, completely. And I don't see it as overlong. I mean, it is overlong, but that's exactly the point. It also impresses me much as Mr Bowie at his most confessional, sincere and, well, resonant. It took him some time to become resonant, I'd say. Then again, maybe it's just a brilliant disguise? Well, who cares. Plutarch once said one can acquire virtue by means of imitating it.