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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"?

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.

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.


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.


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.



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.


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

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

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

Bump!

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.