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.