on the contrary, i asked what tracks you thought were so good. you evaded the question then and have now done so again, which is a little odd on a discussion forum. hardly life and death, but thanks for logging in and the patronising post. so much for not being rude.
Essential only for fans of the legend or glam rock / proto punk and I rate him very high. The album is good but you can feel he tried more input in production and mixing than the concept - very impressive nonetheless - resulting in a collection of songs that sound like his own Pin Ups part II. No surprise after the massive success in U.S. and the production and mixing of Raw Power. As for weak Side B - We are the Dead - worth the album alone for any fan.
Side B weak? No way! That's the most important part of the album! We Are the Dead / 1984 / Big Brother / Chant of the Ever Circling Skeletal Family If you have read George Orwell's 1984, this sequence, and the way it ends are terrifying, but extremely entertaining. And the last track says more with it's few words than the previous tracks combined. It is a chant of coming to grips with, and acceptance of fate.
Every album that came after was important, but imo retrospectively palls in comparison to Diamond Dogs.
Purple Jim. I was listening to Billion Dollar Babies the other day and I could here the theatrical/cinematic atmosphere of thing and it's very similar to the mood and music of Diamond Dogs.
Yes. I've played it many times. Edit: Just looked at the Wikipedia entry, and I think a lot of people have flipped it onto side two: Low appears on a number of critics' "best album" lists. Pitchfork placed it at number 1 on the website's "Top 100 Albums of the 1970s".[8] In 2000 Q placed Low at number 14 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever.[9] In 2003, the album was ranked number 249 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[11] In a retrospective review, The Rolling Stone Album Guide states "it's the music of an overstimulated mind in an exhausted body [...] sashays through some serious emotional wreckage".[51] Philip Glass based his 1992 classical composition Low Symphony on Low, with Bowie and Eno both influencing the work.[52] In 2013, NME listed the album as the 14th greatest of all time.[10] JcS
I wasn't implying you should change your opinion because I--and others--have a different one; I was just responding to the notion that only side 1 of LOW was played after the first time. The second side was played LESS when I was listening to it, I grant you that. I had to be in the mood to hear it; side one was more accessible and undemanding of my attention to enjoy it. JcS
It was ( side 2) atmospheric in 1977, brave new world futurism, no doubt with Eno's help. Ironically I went off him after Another Green World.
Yeah, I think that was my first exposure to Eno (LOW), and a review I read at the time gave him a lot of credit for what was on the LP. Therefore, I gave Eno a lot of credit--and still do, now that I've learned more about it. My Eno collection is probably more than most people in the world, but I am certainly not a devotee. I think I have everything up to APOLLO except DISCREET MUSIC, plus the Cale and Byrne collaborations, NERVE NET, THE DROP and ANOTHER DAY ON EARTH. There may be another title or two I'm not remembering as I sit here (well, I just remembered the Harold Budd album, whatever it was called). Just about every one has a track or segment I find interesting, and few are pleasing from start to finish. Just about like most Bowie albums, come to think of it. Thread hijack over... JcS