David Bowie

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Justin24

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
6,716
Location
San Mateo
Which Album should I buy first?? I don't have any albums by Mr. Bowie, which do you recommend I buy first?
 
To answer your question correctly:

Low :wink:

If you can't dig this you don't deserve to listen to Bowie.

How's that for smarmy? Not too bad I think.
 
Buy the 1967 Space Oddity/ Man Of Words, Man Of Music album.

Of course "Ziggy Stardust" too.

Often overlooked: the brilliant 90s album "Outside".
 
Lancemc said:
To answer your question correctly:

Low :wink:

If you can't dig this you don't deserve to listen to Bowie.

How's that for smarmy? Not too bad I think.
Shut up, please.
 
Lancemc said:
To answer your question correctly:

Low :wink:

If you can't dig this you don't deserve to listen to Bowie.

How's that for smarmy? Not too bad I think.

:rolleyes: Come on, man...Low isn't a starter record. My favorite is Station To Station, but I wouldn't recommend that first either. :shrug:

It's all about Ziggy Stardust. :rockon:
 
Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust or Low. You can't go wrong with these!
 
Canadiens1160 said:
Shut up, please.

that's hardly necessary.

I'd reccomend Low (my favourite Bowie record ever!) Scary Monsters or Hunky Dory. The latter two have his best two songs (Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars) so you can't go wrong with either of them.
 
I don't really buy into the whole "starter record" theory. If an album's good, and you have at least decent taste, you'll like it.

And Low is Bowie's best album. So if Justin has good taste, he should enjoy Low.
 
Don't forget Hunky Dory, it's softer, like Ferrari or Le Tigre, but still kickass.
 
Lancemc said:
I don't really buy into the whole "starter record" theory. If an album's good, and you have at least decent taste, you'll like it.

I've never bought into that either. It's like what's the point of waiting to see if a person would like that artist's best work. You'll like it or you won't and at least you didn't spend too much trying to find out if you like them. I agree that Low is a great measuring stick for seeing if you like Bowie.
 
Screwtape2 said:


I've never bought into that either. It's like what's the point of waiting to see if a person would like that artist's best work. You'll like it or you won't and at least you didn't spend too much trying to find out if you like them. I agree that Low is a great measuring stick for seeing if you like Bowie.
I disagree.

I know a couple of family friends in their mid-30s who are big nostalgic fans of Joshua Tree-era U2 and early 80s U2, but they completely fell off the fanwagon around Achtung Baby.

They love U2 and get a huge amount of enjoyment from part of the band's catalogue. Just they don't like Achtung Baby onwards doesn't mean that they're not allowed to like other albums from the group.

Lancemc said:
I don't really buy into the whole "starter record" theory. If an album's good, and you have at least decent taste, you'll like it.

And Low is Bowie's best album. So if Justin has good taste, he should enjoy Low.

With someone like Bowie, who has such clearly defined segments of a career like U2, I'm quite suprised to see you guys posting crap like this.

--------------

As far as Low - it's a landmark album and the highlight of Bowie's Berlin era. That said, there is NO SONG on Low as poignant as something like Word On a Wing, and personally I think "Heroes" is a stronger and more refined effort.

Low deserves a lot of praise, but not as much as people are quick to heap on it just because they read a review on Allmusic.com

Calling Low the best Bowie has to offer is ridiculous. It ignores one of his signature qualities in his ability to begin a song with a whisper and end it wailing at anyone who will listen. There's a nostalgic, sad quality to songs like Five Years, Word on a Wing, and Five Years you get none of on Low.
 
Last edited:
I bought the 2-disc Greatest Hits after seeing a TV special on him 4 years ago, and I was hugely disappointed. It's alright, but I much prefer those who came after him: The Cure, U2, etc. Maybe because the style is so old, it's hard for me to appreciate few songs I've heard from regular albums like "Ziggy Stardust". I also find the production self-consciously extravagant. "The Man Who Sold the World" is much better on Nirvana's acoustic album.

In a wierd way, that black guy performing the songs on "Life Acquatic of Steve Zissou" was more interesting, but maybe it was the shock value of having Bowie songs performed like folk music or something.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom