Was Bowie crazy for removing "Too Dizzy" from Never Let Me Down?

Erdall Kizilcay talks

SDE: I did want to talk to you about that album, because it’s one of the most interesting projects David has worked on [post-70s] and it’s not very well known.

EK: Yes, but it’s still me again. He made the whole album and I was still his ‘invincible Turk’ and that’s why I don’t get it why the guy could turn 180 degrees. Everything I did with David was great, and if the critics didn’t like it it’s not him, it’s the other people. With musicians, producers and performers if they have success then they made everything, but if it has not really worked out for them, they are not guilty because some other people are responsible

lol that "Too Dizzy" had its own thread. Poor Erdal.

erdal doesn't really sound like he has very consistent taste though in that interview. I mean the things he cites as things he likes: heart's filthy lesson, etc. but then to defend too dizzy? maybe that song would sound better with different production; the tune is fine, but the massive reverbed snare, the sax....it's not good.

and "EK: No. It’s been a long time. I realised it’s not working between David and me and I just let it go. I don’t want to hear about anything. That’s my personal decision, I’m not really interested in what he’s doing. "

oh but I will be playing in basically a cover band playing all his songs...

I dunno.

Parsing 80s production is tough, with so much new tech through that decade it seems kind of happenstance that some 80s music things would stand the test of time and others would not. I've heard from people who were in-studio on NLMD that they had no idea the record was bad, that it wasn't a creative low point, that it there was palpable excitement about the songs and the recording. They say it must've been the mix, or the sequence, or the mastering, or something else that screwed it up. I don't think so, I just think it was a new sound and it was a difficult time to really place your production choices in proper context. Tough to distinguish "cheesy" from "modern". I can hear in this record an alternate version of the decade where Peter Gabriel is seen as "the guy who lost his way in the 80s" and Bowie is the guy who got it right. Not trying to say that the songs are terrific, but I can see why Erdal and David (and others) were excited at the time about the new sounds! fresh and modern! and here is Erdal, still possessed by the fond memory of that point of creation.

I certainly remember that, when this album came out, it was pretty much hyped as great. like every bowie album has been, basically.

Bowie said in that summer's RS cover story that he heard a continuity between Scary Monsters and NLMD.

plus, Bowie and Kizilcay prepared the demos themselves and taught them to the band (few artists think "This is a terrible record that I'm going to assemble painstakingly"). Besides, critics who greeted this with faint praise weren't going to hear how terrible Bowie's voice was.

Oof, a song for those who felt "Modern Love" and "Blue Jean" are too arty and difficult.

felt/feel

it's the tragedy of that record: DB thought he could snap back into songwriting shape after taking half a decade off, and he couldn't. He'd lost the knack. & he had no one left to tell him otherwise: Kizilcay was essentially his human MIDI interface.

is it love or is it what?

A horrible song and the second half of NLMD became less awful with its removal.

Nah "Bang Bang" and "NY's in Love" are worse

Also horrible songs which should have been excised. Just end the damn album after Glass Spider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkGLwQ76E5o

please watch the slideshow

Julien Temple was not a positive influence on Bowie.

Is it love or is it what?
Who's this guy I'm gonna blow away, hey
What kind of love is he giving you?
I'm a dizzy's, what I'm trying to say

A song worthy of Tommy Stone