Bowie's "Low" vs "Heroes" ??? Which do you prefer?

George Bush to thread.

As for Bowie, which ever one has 'Look back in anger'. I can't remember at the moment which one it's on.

i rank low so highly at least partly b/c it was the 1st berlin bowie that i'd heard on the CD reissue (i'd managed to get me hands on a cassette version of lodger circa 1989, which was no mean feat in those pre-bowie cd release days). in those halcyon days (circa 1985-1992), where getting anything before let's dance in ANY format qualified as something of a minor miracle, what rare snippets of the berlin-era songs that one would hear on the odd mix-tape were akin to tantalizingly incomplete ancient greek poems or plays. and largely for the same reasons -- in those days, one HEARD of how influential those berlin records were -- how one's favorites of those times like, say, numan or reznor or vince clarke or were but PALE COPIES of these records (or "influenced" by them [hello mr sinker!]). and, when "wild is the wind," "warszawa," or "beauty and the beast" appeared on those mix-tapes, one could SORTA grasp those connections (like a crawl through aeschylus or euripedes would shed light on what eugene o'neill was up to). otherwise, one had to take it on faith -- i hadn't heard those fabled (and, for all intents and purposes during that time period, "lost") recordings in their entirety. not to mention that it raised some intriguing questions re mr. bowie's oeuvre -- how could a guy who started out combining an orange mullet and ridiculous platform shoes with some japanese dude's vision of what a martian rockstar would wear turn 180 degrees and turn out these weirdly cold songs (i was naive and dumb back then too, "cocaine" meant "al pacino shouting 'come say hello to my li'l friend!!'" not "strange english dude making odd sounds in a german studio w/ an erstwhile pseudo-drag queen.") so when i managed to get my hands on a re-issued low, and sat enraptured through the clanging joy of "speed of life" through the calm loveliness of "all saints"*, it was rather like opening a box, discovering 1/3 of sophocles' lost works, and connecting the dots. (my then ardent love affair w/ NIN, nitzer ebb and KMFDM became less tender and tinder, to paraphrase another weird-looking english dude i liked back then.) (* -- i didn't then, and still don't, count the abominable "sound and vision" remix as anything worth getting worked up over one way or another.)

i could also point out that, as far as low goes, that i cottoned more to its cold kling-klang sheen masquerading very real and intense emotions (mr. numan DID learn something from the master!), as well as the odd juxtaposition of structurally and lyrically knotty pop-song fragments and glacial synth epics. in comparison, heroes' pop moments were much more staid (and the synth epics much more tenuous). (though i like heroes well enough -- "heroes," "beauty and the beast," "v2 schneider," and "the secret life of arabia" guaranteed that [sorry ned, "sons of the silent age" never did much for me -- to my ears, it sounds almost like an inferior remake of "the supermen"].)

and, of course, the whole station to station-to-scary monsters period is intriguing as a record of a very talented -- and very fucked-up -- artist slowly picking up the pieces of a shattered mind/muse/personality. but that's the common answer for these recordings, innit?

Heroes>hot>Visage

I was watching that in Japan last month, and I think it is remarkable, perhaps the video that keeps its appeal after many of the others on the Bowie DVD have faded. I think what's really unusual about it is the half-heartedness, the clumsiness. It's basically a rock video featuring a pierrot act, a mime sketch of a rock star making a rock video, yet too comically glum and sulky to go through the required hoops, and lacking the necessary gung ho conviction. 99% of rock videos have full-throttle conviction, conviction turned up to 11. But here Bowie mimes a desultory half-heartedness with deft physical theatre. The character (because it isn't really Bowie, it's a fellow, a sad sack, a thin-lipped melancholic) makes to play his guitar and gives up half way through the phrase. He just can't be bothered. He's awkward, but the awkwardness is performed very gracefully. There's something of Buster Keaton in the performance, the grace with which clumsiness is evoked. (Keaton gets a little homage in a much later Bowie video, 'Miracle Goodnight'.)

'Fashion', while lacking the winning tentativeness of the 'Be My Wife' video, does have some of the same deliberate clumsiness; the Bowie character makes a silly rat-like gesture at one point, stops, sniffs, wipes his nose with the back of his hand, and continues. It's a great little piece of actor's business, a sort of Brechtian alienation effect. Very few rock stars have the degree of theatrical sophistication it takes to risk ambiguity like that. And very few rock stars are attractive enough to risk making 'ugly' gestures or giving 'mixed messages'.

on a far more basic level than momus's analysys: for me, the thing that always stuck out (literally) in the be my wife video is bowie's teeth. i could be remembering this wrongly, but ISTR several shots in which the fixed, desperate grin is pretty much the focus. there was a truth, an honesty about those teeth.

as for the thread: come on. low. there is no question there. heroes is merely a great album. low is LOW. it is ... unimpeachable. it is perfect.

I am really enjoying all the stuff from this era on the Stage reissue. "Beauty & The Beast" and the instrumentals especially.

Both albums are great though, but "Low" is my fave Bowie album.

I'll split my vote: first side goes to Low, second side goes to Heroes.

Unleach the hounds!

But Low is the better album, more extreme in its pop-soundtrack divide, more concise, less "rock" more "soul" in terms of the base materials for its songs...

Much as James Brown begat MC Hammer

Oh, and I agree completely w/Ned's choice waaay upthread. "Heroes" for me.

Except I hear nothing of Blur in anything by Blur. "Trouble In The Message Center" is "Heroes"-by-numbers though.

If you mean that Brown taught Hammer how to wear ridiculous clothes and sing/shout banalities over beats, then yeah.

What's going on with the reissues? I expected to see a 30th Anniversary double deluxe just like the early albums a couple years ago, but no show. There's a couple pricey 2007 issues, but I don't know if they're remastered from the 1999 Virgin version. My Rykodisc Low is sounding a little brittle to me.

There's a brand new book out about the Berlin era by Thomas Jerome Seabrook called Bowie in Berlin: A New Career In A New Town. I flipped through it. Nice pictures, but it doesn't seem to improve on the Berlin section in David Buckley's Strange Fascination. Also released since the last post, David Bowie Under Review: 1976-1979. It's next in my Netflix, will report back.

I wonder how the albums would have differed if Bowie convinced Michael Rother (Neu!, Harmonia) to join in.

The instrumentals would've been better.

Lodger tends to be overshadowed by these two, but it has a few of my favourite Bowie tunes on (Fantastic Voyage, Yassassin, Look Back in Anger). To be honest I find the instrumental tracks on Low and Heroes to be a bit of a waste, as I adore his voice so much.

Lodger's the best of the 3, and I think that's also something of an ILM consensus, not that that counts for owt.

Between Low and Heroes - Sons of the Silent Age is my favourite track on either album, so Heroes wins.

i don't understand the ILX love for "sons of the silent age," i think it's the weakest track on heroes.

Lodger's the best of the 3, and I think that's also something of an ILM consensus, not that that counts for owt

it is? i missed that meeting.

i missed that meeting too; hence the poll on the other thread :)

"Beauty and the Beast" -- my favorite cut from "Heroes" and after all these years, still can't figure out what Eno did to treat Fripp's guitar that way. First take, too.

Fripp: "Currently we are in dispute with the David Bowie estate and PPL, who refuse to acknowledge that RF is a featured performer on both Heroes and Scary Monsters albums."

I had to ask on FB what PPL does (which I forgot); it collects royalties for performers on songs, rather than just the writers. A bit stupid for the estate to not own up to this; also a bit lame for Fripp to air his dirty laundry on FB the way he did on this topic, it makes him look unbelievably petty.

Has he ever cared how he looks?

true, i just don't know what he expects to get out of that post.

Not sure, but I think this is the same tack he took when he had that brief dispute with Kanye over Schizoid Man royalties. Ask nicely and privately once and then air it out. Never again with the Endless Grief.

someone posted this on stupid steve hoffman forums which clears this all up: "At the Crimson pre-show last night, David Singleton explained that PPL informed DGM that Fripp would no longer be paid royalties as a 'featured' performer on Heroes since the production credits do not list him as such. PPL cited a law that went into effect around 1990 with regards to this issue and are arguing that even though Heroes was made in the 70's the ruling can be applied retroactively. It's another case of the music industry ripping off the artist. Lawyers for the Bowie estate are siding with this ruling.
The fact that Tony Visconti and others involved in the making of Heroes acknowledge that Fripp was a co-creator and collaborator on Heroes, as well as interview transcripts of Bowie saying the same, is being disregarded since the album does not use the words 'featured' artist/player/etc.
It's easy to see why Fripp is pissed."

I don't get what Bowie's estate gets out of siding with PPL on this.