can someone explain why people prefer Low over Heroes? didn't understand when I first heard both years ago, still don't understand now.
also how is Beauty and the Beast not one of his most classic songs?!
>>61728009
I love both albums, two of my favorites of all time but the Low hype really is ludicrous at this point. To me, Heroes in the best album I've ever heard. I feel like it's a cohesion of Low's concept.
>>61728050
>I feel like it's a cohesion of Low's concept.
basically that
it's noisier, it's catchier, it's stranger, it's like everything that Low wasn't (and thus bored me with)
>>61728009
>liking pop ballads on Heroes
You clearly have refined taste op. Go listen to John Mayer for some more vocal pop music
I thought people just said they liked Low more to seem edgier and cool.
>>61728072
it's not just the pop ballads it's everything on the album.
it's like Low was Bowie fucking around, trying to see what works, and Heroes was him making an actual album out of what did work.
>>61728116
I mean P4k considers it AOTD for the 70's. it's clearly a popular belief
>>61728009
Heroes is his best album but I don't think it's by a lot. I'd give Low a decently close #2 spot.
That said holy shit Heroes is a masterpiece. There's almost nothing wrong with the entire album and it's immediately engaging from start to finish IMO
>>61728009
I prefer "Heroes" but only marginally. They both excel at different things.
>>61728143
There are 0 albums I enjoy that are smattered with shitty pop ballads.
You made a thread about an album full of pop ballads being better than another album.
Fucking go back to /v/ or /fit/ with your shit taste
>>61728202
>I don't enjoy them
>Therefore you must have worse taste than me
Honestly you seem like you're from another board or something, you don't care about music much it seems.
>>61728228
If you listen to pop music, you don't care about music, only social status and fitting in.
>>61728158
>That said holy shit Heroes is a masterpiece. There's almost nothing wrong with the entire album and it's immediately engaging from start to finish IMO
It feels new whenever I listen to it. The next track always comes as a bit of a shock.
>>61728202
>liking Heroes now makes you /v/
Youre trying too hard m8
>>61728202
>There are 0 albums I enjoy that are smattered with shitty pop ballads.
And stay out of my room mom! : ^ )
>>61728256
I listen to all music (exceptional trad folk) including classical and jazz.
Heroes is a great album.
>>61728256
But Heroes isn't a pop album. Either you have no concept of pop music or you're so edgy you listen to volcanoes. There's no way you're older than 18.
>>61728202
>pop is bad
Are you 12?
>>61728228
>>61728281
>>61728288
>>61728315
>>61728345
>>61728349
Holy shit is there a gas leak or something? People are so fucking easy to bait.
>>61728345
https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/david_bowie/heroes/
>genres
>art pop
>>61728760
What do you think that link proves?
>>61728760
>RYM
Speaking of Berlin, why doesn't Bowie get properly credited for inventing Death Grips?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP4WoA7rBoU
>>61728821
>>61728866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder
>>61728930
Yea either that or you're just a fucking idiot who is wrong.
I prefer the 2nd side of Low over Heroes' 2nd side, but I don't get why people think the 1st side of Low is better than Heroes'. Heroes is so much more refined.
>>61728708
Looks like we trolled 'em friend-o!
>>61728708
merely pretending.jpg
>>61728959
he's right though
Bowie is pop music
>>61728899
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2bZalFMo4xM
you posted the wrong track anon
The second side of Low was really cool for the experimentation and the fact that Bowie was a pop musician willing to go there but it's not even remotely on the same level as where Neu! was
The melancholy that is practically slathered all over Low is what made it so engaging, especially after not only what went on in his personal life, but artistically too. STS was beginning to go that way with the likes of word on a wing but there was a sarcasm. Low was genuine, it was raw. 'Heroes' is for when you feel like you're just getting out of the shit and nothing can stop you, Low is for when you've been stopped and have to go walk through it, ever so slowly
>>61729012
Artists don't belong to genres you fucking retard. Bowie mostly makes pop music but calling "Heroes" pop is questionable since the song structures don't entirely adhere to traditional pop formats, there's a decent amount of improvisation in both the lyrics and instrumentation and a lot of the songs don't really have a focus on any kind of prominent melody.
>>61728009
I always enjoyed Low for it's story behind it, manic to depressive feelings on the first side, and the vibrant, interesting instrumentals on side 2. Heroes is just as great, but I am forever connected to Low because it helped me through a very dark time in my life.
>>61729012
I find him more of an art rock artist.
>>61728202
Low most certainly has pop ballads in the beginning, and that's coming from someone who prefers Low over 'Heroes'.
Heroes was the only bowie album my in my dad's record collection. Coincidentally it was the first record I listened to front to back.
With that bias noted, Heroes is my favorite and remains the definitive bowie album for me. Everything else seems false.
>>61728009
I always like Lodger more than both.
>>61728009
>can someone explain why people prefer Low over Heroes?
pitchfork named it the best album of the 70's
>>61729510
And then there's this hipster
>>61729510
Berlin Trilogy cant be beat , Lodger is an excellent cap off
1st half of Low > Heroes >>>>>>>>>> 2nd half of Low.
>>61728009
>ctrl+f
>"Eno"
>no results
oh now I understand why you people have bad opinions
I just listened to both of these and they fucking sucked.
Not being ironic/baiting.
"Space Oddity" is the only good song he's ever put out.
These two albums are like slightly interesting instrumental wise and then Bowie adds absolutely nothing of value from a melodic standpoint.
Bad.
>>61729510
I AM A DJ
>>61730692
the climax of Subterraneans is far and away my favorite bowie moment. What precedes it is gorgeous. I suspect that your heart is dead.
>>61728009
the chorus of sons of the silent age is my favourite moment in music. it's so lush and huge sounding, and it has pop appeal, but it's so unnerving at the same time.
i never understood why people don't give heroes the credit it deserves. it's every bit as good as low. it's like people just completely forget about it except for the title track
>>61730692
2nd half of Low is far better than the 1st half
>>61730754
>2016
>Being a contrarian
>>61730999
Yeah, I think I like the second half of Low better than the first half of Heroes and vice versa. It's hard to pick a favorite.
>>61731578
*second half of Heroes. The first half is some of Bowie's best by far.
heroes would be better if the ambient on it weren't garbage. but instead of the subtle emotional pieces on low's second half we get three needlessly melodramatic and campy tracks that really fuck up the record.
>>61728009
This is gonna sound really stupid, but even though Heroes has better songs, Low is a better album. Like, it flows better and has better atmosphere and a more cohesive theme. Get what I mean?
>>61728009
I agree that Heroes is better. Heroes is a perfect album. Low is very good, but it is flawed for sure. The first half is what stops Low from being perfect all around.
Also, I completely agree that Beauty and the Beast is criminally underrated. What an amazing opener.
>>61732199
Nice rockism.
>>61728116
I personally haven't listened to Heroes nearly as much as Low, but I find myself liking the ambient arrangements of Low a whole lot. The Speed of Life is a friggin' awesome song.
>>61729230
I wouldn't call the songs at the beginning of Low "pop ballads". Poppy? Yes. Ballads? Fuck no.
>>61730754
>not jamming out to Joe the Lion
so i see we have a pleb here.
>>61728158
>>61729422
>>61732671
Is it just me or does the last song completely kill the album? It should end with Neukoln, Secret Life ruins the mood for me. It should've been removed, or put on the first half of the album somewhere.
>>61733029
It belonged on Lodger really
I prefer Low to Heroes because it focuses more on Eno's synths, and leans less towards pop. It has far less ballads than Heroes, I often find myself dazing off during many of the tracks on Heroes. The guitars on Low are weak compared to Heroes though.
LODGER IS THE MOST UNAPPRECIATED OF THE TRILOGY.
I personally prefer Heroes overall though.
>>61729091
Heard this song for the first time on NPR yesterday. I was fucking astonished to find out it was Bowie.
I love it. This is from his 2003 album right?
>>61733551
>>61729091
That's not the original, I didn't actually listen to it. That's a remix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2R2Fk2X1g
There's the original. Regardless, still an awesome song. I get a lot less of a Death Grips vibe and more of a Nine Inch Nails vibe, probably because Trent Reznor did this song with Bowie.
The Idiot is a better third Berlin album than Lodger.
>>61728966
This
>>61733497
And it's funny because it's one Eno did the most work on, whle this "accusation" commonly brought on Low.
Also it's proto Talking Heads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgPUxjQOk-w
>>61736094
Eno probably played least on Lodger out of all. While Eno was a valuable contributor on these three albums, I believe that his contribution is somewhat overrated, and Visconti somewhat underrated. But there's no denying it's Bowie's show.
>>61728760
I'm pretty sure that's the secondary genre, the primary is Art rock
please try harder
>>61733029
I just listened to Heroes for the first time because of this thread and the last song choice makes zero sense. It's honestly fucking unacceptable. The album could've ended without that last song appearing at all and it would have been perfect. God damn it
>>61736094
>proto talking heads
>1979
u wot m8
>>61736094
>And it's funny because it's one Eno did the most work on
I didn't know this, but I can totally see it being so. Lodger reminds me alot of Before and After Science to the point where I can see the embedded song fitting in perfectly within that album.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfvn-jzJiAA
I never see anyone commenting on how trashy Low sounds, production wise.
>>61736688
I don't think its trashy. Maybe a too minimalist.
It's the same reason I don't really care for Eno's ambient works and prefer Eno's more glam stuff.
>>61736708
It sounds like it's been recording in someone's basement.
>>61736688
Only the A-side, the instrumentals don't sound trashy at all.
>>61736756
They sound slightly better, I'll admit that.
>>61736746
No it doesn't, just sounds electronically processed by Eno.
>>61728143
>It's not edgy or cool because pitchfork likes it
???
>>61736537
That's standard Bowie: do something which is not what you expected. You will become accustomed to that song in that order once the jarring wears off and it will make more sense.
>>61736778
Yeah, I get that it's probably a concious choice, but a little cleaner would've sounded much better imo.
>>61736778
It was, and by Visconti as well. They did heavy treatment of the drums, such as some time and pitch effects on the snare notably on Sound and Vision. I think Bowie intentionally lo-fi'd some songs sometimes. Notable songs with weirdo fucked up production are Scary Monsters from that album, and Diamond Dogs, from that album.
>>61736813
It works on some songs like Breaking Glass, but I agree when it's downright distorting like in Sound & Vision it is to much. The basic vocal recordings where clean tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peiJ9_1tH_w
>>61736905
I initially thought he was using a drum machine on Low because of the treatment, which still sounds innovative imo.
I think most kraut rock had a kind of raw sound at the time?
>>61737010
Yeah, it does sound like a drum machine
>>61732154
Low would be better if instead of four melodramatic electronic pieces that all sounds the same using the exact same instrumentation, there more closely resembled Heroes second side, which uses a variety of instrumentals to evoke the emotions of complex war themes, notably the bombing of Japan on Moss Garden and the plight of Turkish immigrants on Neukoln.
>>61736537
I don't think a single person disagrees that it's out of place. I think it's meant to communicate the sense of moving forward. Think of it as the end sequence f the movie where bowie is looking at berlin from afar, and then hops on a train to turkey to seek his next adventure.
Also, he summarizes Station To Station, Low and Heroes in like two lines, it's brilliant.
>I was running at the speed of life, through one inch thoughts and fantasies, when I saw your eyes in a crushed face.
"I was moving so fast, unable to look beyond myself and my glib nazi fantasies until I encountered the real Germany and was shaken into reality.
>>61736094
He sounds EXACTLY like David Byrne here
Beauty and the beast is seriously fucking underrated
Mother Fucking Fripp with the guitar makes the song incredible.
Fripp and Bowie is a match made in heaven.
Please Fripp, don't die.
>>61736688
Wasn't that on purpose? The whole "fucking with the fabric of time" thing Visconti did.
MY MY
YOU CANT SAY NO TO THE BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
Low by a mile.
>>61733497
I've been going through his studio discography since he died and had never heard Lodger before since I was worried it wouldn't hold a candle to Heroes and would be disappointing, fucking loved it though. The Idiot is one of my favorite albums and when I heard Sister Midnight in Red Money I lost my shit
>>61740647
Not a very coherent album, but most songs on Lodger are good to great.
First half of Heroes > first half of Low (but not by much)
Second half of Low > second half of Heroes (by quite some margin)
So Low wins overall
"Heroes": the most cohesive and full-fledged of the three, it's the most straightforward too but you can definitely hear Eno's sound on it.
Low: soundscapes, trying different things, good ideas but almost all tracks sound underdeveloped (2-minute-long tracks that just keep the same idea and fade out tend to leave me wanting for more).
Lodger: maybe the most experimental of the three, a few great songs but many are more "interesting" than really enjoyable in my opinion, and all in all it's a bit uncohesive and hit-and-miss.
"Heroes" is the only one I find entirely satisfying, honestly. None of those are in my favourite Bowie albums, I like Ziggy Stardust, Hunky Dory and Outside best.
>>61732691
Please avoid using words you don't know the meaning of.
>>61741609
>2-minute-long tracks that just keep the same idea and fade out tend to leave me wanting for more
Keeps the songs charmingly fresh & raw, even after listening to them many times.
>>61741303
This guy gets it.
>>61728072
>pop ballads
Yeah fuck off, you're clearly underaged if you think Berlin era Bowie was about that
