The Official David Bowie Thread

[14232949]

it's not bad by any means Goofle, but you're not missing much. If you've heard Bowie's best stuff there's no need to listen to this.
I predict its lasting impact will be to perhaps be AOTY for those in there 40's and convinced that all of today's music is orchestrated by evil minds like Simon Cowell. But to the objective mind, it's decent I guess. Nothing special.

[Cuthbert]

Originally Posted by Mankycaaant

Did nobody else think The Next Day was just a case of playing it safe.

Not really tbh. If he wanted to play it safe he could have just retired, but...

Jeez, even the album cover was just a rehash of the Heroes album.

Surely if he wanted to 'play it safe' then he'd have got a completely new album cover made instead of doing something like that? That album cover is the opposite of playing it safe.

here was nothing on this album that made me think, wow; this album was actually necessary.

Do you not enjoy any albums at all if they aren't 'necessary' then? Was Heroes necessary after Low? It was basically the same just another edition of what he did on Low.

Now I like Bowie but I ask myself what the point in this was. It touched on no new ground, did nothing out of the ordinary and I think in a few years it'll just be lost amongst his vast discography.

It doesn't have to touch on new ground to be an enjoyable listen tbh.

I don't know what I was expecting, it's just that for someone dubbed 'The Music Chameleon' I'd have thought there'd be some variety on this. I have to say I think Bowie's lost his ear for changing up his style and this latest effort signals to me that he's finally ran out of steam. After all, when was the last truly great Bowie album? Low in 77, perhaps?

Scary Monsters. But I think the fact it's gone straight in at number 1 suggests that he hasn't ran out of steam. All artists inevitably fall off anyway, we know he's peaked, this is a good album.

It was almost like an old man standing up and saying 'look I've still got it' which is all well and good if he were a sports player but music is a world of adaptation and change. Staying stagnant and not switching up your style is detrimental to your progression as an artist. Bowie better than anyone knows this. Which brings up the question, why even put this out there?
I know lots of fans will be drooling over this and hailing it to be great when in fact it's probably average at best. If you look at it objectively (don't say it's good, coz he's old) what is so great about this record?

The production for a start, sounds far, far better than most of the stuff he's done in the last 30 years.

Are you saying here, that this album isn't good because he's old or that people will say "this album is good because David Bowie is old"?

It reminds me of another album. REM's Collapse Into Now, and I think we all know what that album was a precursor to.
Perhaps you could argue, why should Bowie go out his way to try something new at this stage in his life? He's had a long, varied and successful career.
That's true and The Next Day will satisfy most but it doesn't touch his best work and to me just feels like a rehash of what I've already heard him put out, and heard him do better.

Doesn't stop it being a good album tbh. I'm not saying this is his best album or as experimental as the Berlin trilogy, but it's an enjoyable listen and the best thing he's done in a long time. It's a straightforward, Rock, David Bowie album.

[14232949]

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

Not really tbh. If he wanted to play it safe he could have just retired, but...


Surely if he wanted to 'play it safe' then he'd have got a completely new album cover made instead of doing something like that? That album cover is the opposite of playing it safe.

How is doing something different playing it safe? He used a rehash of an old album cover. Not exactly innovative. Had it been a dubstep album, would that have been 'playing it safe' because it's different by your logic.

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

Do you not enjoy any albums at all if they aren't 'necessary' then? Was Heroes necessary after Low? It was basically the same just another edition of what he did on Low.

They each showed an artistic spark and both brought new ideas and themes to the table. Low being a much more instrumental album that incorporated elements of world music into it. I question the need to bring this album out, as you earlier said he could have just stayed in retirement.

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

It doesn't have to touch on new ground to be an enjoyable listen tbh.

I never said it was bad, I just expected elements of new ideas from Bowie, a man who has constantly switched up his style throughout his career and is known for doing so.

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

Scary Monsters. But I think the fact it's gone straight in at number 1 suggests that he hasn't ran out of steam. All artists inevitably fall off anyway, we know he's peaked, this is a good album.

I'm pretty sure One Direction have had a number 1 album, are they in Bowie's league? The Top 40 charts don't determine which music is good and what is not, they merely determine sales figures. Ant N Dec were at Number 4 in the singles chart last week. Does that mean their song is the fourth greatest track in the world?
Not all artists fall off at all. Most know when to call it a day, Bowie doesn't.

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

The production for a start, sounds far, far better than most of the stuff he's done in the last 30 years.

He's using updated technology and recording equipment. If you were to remaster the majority of his 70's albums, they'd sound similar.

Originally Posted by Fluffy Kittens

Are you saying here, that this album isn't good because he's old or that people will say "this album is good because David Bowie is old"?

Neither, I'm asking people to tell me why they consider it a good album, something you've neglected to do.

[Ass Napkin Ed]

I downloaded his new album the other day, I can't even get through one song w/o smh & pausing play.

Sometimes retirement is needed b/c now as far as I'm concerned that album is an asterisk on his career

[adidasss]

Bump!

Originally Posted by adidasss

I've been listening to his early albums lately and I have to say that everything up to Ziggy stardust bored me (apart from the song The man who sold the world). I'll continue to explore his discography but I'm not very hopeful. :\

Shut your dirty mouth young adidasss!

Ok so I have finally gone through his whole discography and here are my favorites:

1. Station to station - because damn it's funky as hell and contains what I currently consider my all time favorite Bowie song, Word on a wing.
2. Low - first half anyway which is maybe the most original music he's ever made and seems like it could have influenced about a half dozen modern indie bands. I don't care for the second part which is Eno atmospherics.
3. Let's dance - because I'm a pop whore let's be honest.

There are some fantastic singles spread out on other albums but aside from the above, I'd rather make a best of playlist than listen to them in their entirety.

His last couple of decades were a bit depressing to be honest. Quite a stark contrast to the 70s and 80s period.

Just wanted to record this for posterity.

[Psy-Fi]

David Bowie's entire back catalogue is purchased by Warner Music in massive deal worth in excess of '$250million'