first half isn’t that good

second half done better on Heroes

1 Like

Side A: came for the hits
Side B: stayed for the bleak cinematic synth

10

6 Likes

Definite 10. Was the album that turned me into a Bowie fan, and I still think it’s his best. I first got into it after an internet search for Scott Walker’s Nite Flights led me to the entry for Warszawa on the Pushing ahead of the dame blog, which is a fascinating read.

There are so many influences and references to delve into during this period of Bowie’s career, and doing so really adds to the experience of listening to the music.

For example, the quote below (from the aforementioned blog) connects the song to the fact Dr Zamenhof created Esperanto in Warsaw to try and promote peace and cooperation across borders, which is just desperately sad when you consider what had happened to the city between then and when Bowie came up with those lyrics. Eno’s music seems to capture that sentiment perfectly, even though it was composed before Bowie added the concept.

Bowie returned to the studio from Paris drained and irritable and decided to move operations to Berlin. Yet when he heard Eno’s music, he came up with a lyric in about ten minutes, and recorded it almost as quickly. He played Visconti what the latter recalled as a “Balkan boys choir record” (very likely the Śląsk records Bowie that had picked up in Warsaw). Bowie said he wanted to achieve a similar sound for his vocals, some of which echo the “helo helo” chorus of “Helokanie.”

Sula vie dilejo
Solo vie milejo
Cheli venco deho (x2)
Malio
Helibo seyoman
Cheli venco raero
Malio, malio

It seems like a newly-crafted dialect of Esperanto.

It’s as though it was the lost language of a common Europe, some alternate blessed continent that escaped the wars. A tone poem from the world that wasn’t.

5 Likes

I wrote this 800-word (!) article for a friend’s website a few years ago about Low. It still represents my feelings pretty well. So uh…here it is again. Why not.


"When so much influence and praise precedes an album, it takes me a few listens to distance myself from what I expect it to be and just listen to it. That’s how I feel about Low . I wasn’t a huge Bowie fan when I bought it about ten years ago (I am now). I’d heard and read a lot about it. I’d heard that it was his best album, but also his weirdest; that it was also the work of Brian Eno and Tony Visconti not just of Bowie; that it was an inspiration for countless electronic artists; and that the record company hated it when they first heard it, saying: “where are the songs? Take this back”.

When I listened to it those first few times, I wanted it to be great, but I was underwhelmed. What the hell was this? There were only five real verse-chorus-verse songs (and those are over in 15 minutes). Most of the tracks fade out, as if Bowie couldn’t be bothered to hide their lack of completion. They sound processed and artificial. As for the last four tracks…they were interesting, sure, but what else…? I felt short-changed. I’d bought this supposedly great album and there was almost nothing on it. No wonder people hated it when it was first released. People expected Bowie to change his sound with each album, but they also expected tunes.

It’s easy to snark at this attitude in the days of free album streaming, when people can read about the merits of an album and reevaluate it later (or not) for free. But what if you’ve just spent your pocket money on something that feels so slight? I felt shocked. But when I buy a record I enter a contract with the artist, and say that I’m going to give it a real chance. And I did that with Low. Once those first, shocking listens are over, when the album isn’t what I wanted it to be, all that crap fell away and I could hear it properly. And with each subsequent listen, I realised how fantastic Low is.

Firstly, Low is messed-up. Bowie was obviously in a weird place when he wrote and recorded it, and not just Berlin. The first half has all these chopped-up drums, processed guitars, and machines doodling everywhere. But more importantly, every song from “Speed of Life” through to “Be My Wife” is brilliant. When Bowie made this, he knew in his blood, like McCartney, how to compose a great tune. Amazing, chunky bass and drums that yes, you can dance to, and Bowie’s voice and the guitar just about holding onto the melodies, and his sanity, as technology and weirdness try to steal it from him.

The first songs groove and crash and sing, but they have other brilliant things going on. They’re funny. For instance, what the hell is he doing breaking glass and drawing things in someone’s house? They’re also desperate. I can hear it in the pleading for marriage in “Be My Wife” and the way he repeats “I’m in the mood for your love,” in “What in the World”, each time growing more demanding. Thirdly, they’re pretty and profound, like the perfect loneliness of “Sound and Vision” and “Always Crashing the Same Car.”

Then there’s the second half. When I listened the first few times, I wasn’t able to be transported by sound and ambience. But now, Side Two is headphone heaven. Whoever was mainly responsible for composing it is moot when it sounds so gorgeous. The synths and drones wash all over you. After the desolate opening to “Warszawa”, the song opens up, and I’m guided along by the glorious chanting and calm. “Weeping Wall” sounds, to me, like I’m exploring an ice cavern. Finally, “Subterraneans” ends the album with Bowie’s mournful saxophone taking you into the light above ground. But those are just my landscapes. The quality of the sounds and songs means that they’re guaranteed to evoke something different for each listener, as long as you give yourself into them.

So there you have it. I love Low . Yes, its influence and praise precedes it, and yes, there are only five real songs. But it wasn’t made this way to be praised or influential. It was made because Bowie had to make what felt right, no matter how messed-up things were at the time, and push the envelope. He did that, wonderfully. That’s why whenever I press play on Low , I hear glacial, messed-up, processed, human, funny, tuneful, experimental, ambient music which connects , makes me dance, takes me places and still sounds fresh and unique. It just took a while to catch up to where his brilliance was taking me. God bless you, Dave."


So I guess that’s a 10.

10 Likes

Can’t listen to it anymore as ‘A New Career In A New Town’ makes me unbelievably sad. 8/10 overall.

2 Likes

Great point, and melding a communist-era folk melody (which you can hear in the video above) with the sleek, futuristic influences of Kraftwerk et al is a great example of this.

2 Likes

I’ve never really understood the description of Low as an electronic record. I’ve always thought of it as really (skronky) guitary. A good half of it, at least.

It’s obviously not purely an electronic album (which was kind of my point) but its use of synthesisers and electronic instruments was pretty radical for its time.

Really want to like this, but can’t. I like the concept of Bowie better than the reality, I think.

6 Likes

I thought it was named the Berlin Trilogy because he was living there at the time of making them? Not that this necessarily means you can connect them but I guess they sound more distinct in his back catalogue and they had to find a name that made a connection of sorts.

1 Like

Pretty much loathe them mate. So oversensitive about them it’s unreal. Fuck that. Finish your song or don’t bother recording it :smiley:

5 Likes

From Wikipedia:

The cover artwork, a side profile of Bowie in character as Thomas Jerome Newton from The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), was intended to be a visual pun meaning ‘low profile’.

Holy shit, never knew the whole album cover was a massive dad joke :smiley:

Anyway, listening to it now I’m not sure I like it all that much. This isn’t a period of Bowie I took too particularly when I first tried to go into his discography back in the 90s. I’ll give it a few more listens and see if it sticks more though. I do still love Be My Wife and Sound and Vision obviously.

they did finish it, they finished it with a fade out

it’s a 10

I’ll fade you out, mate.

Do seem to recall there was a weird Radiohead EP that had a version of Pearly* without the fade out and it did sound worse.

Yes, that’s why they’re called that. I just think that, musically, it falsely isolates them from the music that led to them. If you listened to Station to Station and Low without knowing any of the biography there is a very clear connection and progression there which the ‘Berlin trilogy’ stuff tends to obscure (see also those who think all the ideas on Low came from Eno).

If you like Be My Wife I’d definitely stick with it. Think it’s quite indicative of the overall style of the album while also being one of the worst songs on there (only due to strong competition, it’s obviously great)

I mean it’s Bowie, it’s great. I like side 1. Side 2 just feels like a less good version of stuff like Can. I don’t mind it but it’s just not elevating it. For me Bowie is at his best in Hunky Dory and Ziggy Stardust in part because that band was so tight. Mick Woodmansey is probably in my top drummers ever, so incredible…

Gave it a listen and managed, for the first time ever, to drag myself to the end of the album. This just isn’t my thing.

1 Like

Fair enough! The difference between Hunky Dory and Low is definitely so much that it could be a different artist, there’s not much of a common thread between the two really. I think the instrumentation and textures on the album are less obvious than with the more traditional rock band set up on Ziggy, but it’s still really tight and there’s a lot going on.

With side 2 (and more generally) I know the “stick with this album/TV show, it gets better after the 14th listen!” is an annoying cliche, but I do think it rewards repeat listens and listening to it on headphones. I always liked Low, but it definitely took time to move up from a 7 to a 10.

Not trying to say you’re wrong to not rate it btw, I just like talking about it!

1 Like