|
 |
|
|
Name: Apocalípticus
Subject: Precious.
-- Jul 17, 2005 at 2:32PM
Simply an intimate piece of work. The songs are simply fantastic. I started listening the album and it seems to be just a couple of good songs, but after listening a couple of times it reveals the true nature of this songs. A perfect recording of this genious. Thanks for show the way to all musicians, David.
Name: Red-milk
Subject: ...
-- Nov 16, 2004 at 4:48PM
David Bowie's Hours is a great album if you ask me.He speaks in riddles in the song ''Seven''.It shows the dramatic situation of an old man who has no memories of the past that's why it seems that he has been born today and he just has like a week until he dies.So that's why he says:I have 7 days to live my life.But it doesn't matter what he does anymore because he is going to die anyhow so he has two options:either he lives what's left from his life,he lives everyday of the week, or he commits all the 7 deadly sins.So''7 days to live or 7 ways to die''.Either you live your life in those seven days (it took God seven days to create)or you commit all those 7 deadly sins.The old man is in a very difficult situation:It doesn't matter what he chooses,he will still die-which makes me cry SO much.It's not that hard.David Bowie is a genius,show him some respect.
Name: Kay'l
Subject: Not Bad
-- May 5, 2004 at 8:36AM
Although this album is attached to an emotional period of my life, I understand the criticisms about it being so dreary. I wouldn't venture to say Hours... is unlistenable, but I think he could have got his message across without such a dull and uninspired collection of songs. Station to Station or Scary Monsters, for instance, managed to be dark, paranoid and largely uncommercial yet still featured quality tunes, lively singing and a sense of hope.
To be fair there are moments of beauty and inspiration, but having them seperated by music so heavy it pulls you down through the floor reduces their effectiveness and makes listening to the album harder work than it should be.
Name: dracodrac04
Subject: muhum
-- May 3, 2004 at 10:37AM
well honestly i think david was struggling w/ himself i think he still dose and i love his work and refuse to down any of it
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: re:hours
-- Oct 19, 2003 at 8:05PM
Well, I bought Bowie's new album Reality a few weeks ago. And I think it's pretty good!
And I still think Hours sucks! The difference? BETTER SONGS. Isn't that shocking?
Name: matea
Subject: re:hours
-- Oct 19, 2003 at 7:35PM
I think everyone should stop with the pity crap! because like what Laurence Wilson said "you havent let it sink in". And i totally agree with that. I mean every singer that has made it real big like david is gonna have some CD's that dont appeal right away but just keep listenin again like what William S. Repsher said "you can!still hear the old David". And if you dont like his new stuff dont listen to it and dont pity any more.David has made it so far hes probbably tired of making these all blow away cd's evryone loves(meaning his fans)and remember he is old.
A Life magazine claims to qoute him on saying "Im gettin old and some times have to bring a little book of lyrics"-with him to concerts because he doesnt remember the words.
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: Hours reveiw
-- Apr 27, 2003 at 9:27PM
Man, you can pity me all you want -- I know a bad Bowie album when I hear one, and this qualifies. I couldn't even bring myself to buy the last one either after hearing it in a friend's apartment.
Strange analogy where getting an album implies having a fish hook caught in your throat. Ouch! And, frankly, whatever spiritual journey I'm going on in life is far from over and has very little to do with the pop music I listen to. Where you going with this?
Name: Laurence Wilson
Subject: Hours reveiw
-- Apr 27, 2003 at 6:42PM
Man you got this album so wrong that I pity you. I pity you because your a Bowie fan who was delivered a great Bowie album and then didn't give it a chance to sink in. Some of Bowie's work is intsantly accessable and some isn't, some of the the harder to get into stuff, just ain't that good and some of it is. This took a few listens for me to get into on a a whole, but I gave it that repeated chance out of MY KNOWLEDGE OF Bowie and his ability to hook you over time.
This is a hook, a big one, but you have to be prepared to be a fish who bites the bate. And once swallowed and that hook is lodged in your throat then your away.
It's another Bowie feeling or mood which beds your soul and brings you closer to your spiritual journey's end.
Name: Dreamer
Subject: David Bowie
-- Sep 19, 2001 at 6:27AM
Hi its Dreamer again!
I just like to let everyone know in New York who has lost their loved ones that they have my deepest sympathy and never give up hope. Be strong and have faith.
Name: Dreamer
Subject: David Bowie
-- Sep 13, 2001 at 4:20AM
I hope David doesn't quit I hope he keeps on going forever. Some of his albums might not have been big sellers but if he believs in himself and keeps on dreamin he'll live forever! I love you David!
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re:
-- Nov 17, 1999 at 12:51AM
Bill, you can subvert the dominant ideology all you want, more power to you, but you just can't make a bad album good. Besides, from the handful of reviews I've read of Hours, they're either flat-out escatic or mildly positive. What is the dominant ideology here?
Someone reading my review of Hours woud, how true, know I didn't like it. I promise you, I can play that silly video game, and I still will not like it. Hopefully, people will be able to gauge how well they would or would not like it based upon my rantings. I felt the need to get into Bowie's career with this review because it seems to me he's trying to recapture some of the same musical and thematic ideas he did (much better) with those 70's albums. He's not doing anything new with this album, which is no crime, but I sincerely think he's not giving it his best shot, albeit a much better shot than he did with those compromised 80's albums.
I want to be seen as a traitor to "youth culture" -- whatever that's supposed to be. With all due respect, fuck "youth culture." More shit has been sold to kids, be it 1959 or 1999, in the name of sustaining some youth culture, which is often nothing more than massive corporations (i.e., record companies) figuring out a way to sell records to kids. What does it mean? What started as rebellion is now safe-as-milk target marketing. If I see a kid deep into a corporately-subscribed trend, be it music/movies/clothing, I know that kid poses a real threat to no one. He's a follower. If there's one thing people like Dylan or Bowie taught me, it's not to follow. Really, Bill, what is youth culture? Could you give me a good thumbnail description. Because when I was 17, I couldn't stand all the big musical trends being foisted on me by record companies and resented other kids falling for them. Naturally, there's gold in them there youth cultures, but most of it isn't. Traitor to youth culture? I'd rather be a heretic -- it's not that I simply don't worship at that altar, it's that I'd rather tear it down. It's lost its meaning. What did it mean to begin with, in those halcyon days of early rock, the late 50's, when kids went wild to Jerry Lew Lewis and Little Richard. Whatever that meant, I'm not so sure it exists anymore in any form.
If Bowie could wipe his slate clean like that, too, Bill, you better believe, I'll be listening. That's the effect all good Bowie albums have had, and, once again, I'm not feeling it here.
Uni? God damn it -- are you a Brit, or do you just speak line one?
Name: William G. Ballantyne
Subject: Review: David Bowies 'hours...'
-- Nov 16, 1999 at 8:23AM
In some ways its nice to be old, relaxed and comfortable. I would have to think back to my Uni days for a time when someones conflicting opinion about music would have caused any volatile emotions to stir in me. No, my interest here is to subvert the dominant ideology, using the power of the web :-) Yes, the material that you have presented is very much in line with the 'accepted' Bowie wisdom. This just seemed like a good time to present the alternative view in a rigorous way, and maybe to set others into re-evaluation mode. I wouldn't have listened to Tin Machine with such glee if the opinion of others was weighing on me. And no, I didn't argue with anyone about it at the time.
But I will take issue with you again, on the point of past relevance. I do not dispute that background material is useful and relevant in guiding the reader as to what should be expected (or not). In the case of the review before me, this must represent some sort of extreme. Perhaps 80% + of this writing is a rant about Bowie himself. The obsession with Bowie has completely displaced the music. What would someone reading your review learn about Hours... ? Only that you didn't like it. I'm not here to educate you on this, but there is in fact a lot of interesting things to say about Hours... , if you'd done even a small amount of research. Ok, ok, check out the association with 'The Nomad Soul', a new PC game from Eidos.
If theres concensus about anything, it's that during the mid-eighties, Bowie took his eye off the game. Bowie knows that. You know that. All the fans no that (well almost all). Its a real shame that those throw away works tarnished an otherwise astonishing catalogue. But as us early Tin Machine adopters soon realised, it turned out to be the best thing that could have happened. Hooking up with Gabrels and Iman changed everything, and the mad scientist of rock was back. Bowie was angry with himself and it showed. But people are slow to forgive and forget aren't they, and besides, theres a lot of a other stuff to listen to without wasting time on irrelevant, dead gods. Didn't bug me at all though.
My, you are an old sweetie aren't you Bill. But If I'm a strange bird, then I'm afraid you're a stereotypical one. In the many reviews that I have read over many years, your take on Bowies early success and supposed subsequent failure is very common. Its the safe view. Your credibility as a reviewer will never be tarnished by delivering a poor assessment of a Bowie album. On the other hand, writing a positive Bowie review, I can well imagine, might be politically difficult for a reviewer. Who or what really leads the way in music in the 90's ? Whatever you do, don't suggest that old wrinkly Bowie still has a piece of the philosophers stone in his pocket, or you might be seen as a traitor to youth culture. Old farts should be put in a cage and made to do covers of cool songs for the entertainment of teenagers, like say, Tom Jones. Elton Jon, the Stones and Dylan may continue, because they do not presume to challenge or lead.
You suggest that I have succumbed to agism somehow. The fact that I sometimes listen to a 52 year olds latest work easily refutes that, as you say. Despite your protest, I expect you know exactly what I mean about aging and the attraction of nostalgia. What I know from my own aging process is that age can bring cynicism and a lessenening of the impact of new things. Standing in awe or wonder at something seems to come more easily to the young. Consequently, I actively try to prevent that from happening by not just writing people off that have interested me in the past. Just a little history is all you need. So many great writers, painters and artists of all description have spent their lives in critical limbo, only to be reveered after death when their work is finally understood without the actual artist serving as a distraction. Thus my prediction about a future re-evaluation.
I'm in no way immune to lifes traps, but I know about quite a few of them. Self fullfilling prophecies are one of my favourites, and your right into yours. You'd love Bowie to come up with something as good as the days of old, but you've given up on the idea that he ever will. Let me tell you this; you'll never experience the thrill of new Bowie again unless you shed that baggage. I never picked it up, and to my great satisfaction, I am rewarded with the same thrill with Hours... as I received from Ziggy all those years ago. Makes me feel young, you know :-)
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: Review: David Bowies 'hours...'
-- Nov 15, 1999 at 11:21AM
Oh, please, Bill, cut to the chase: you're pissed off because someone doesn't like an album you like. If you were a professional reviewer, you'd take everything into account in regards to an artist, otherwise you'd be a bad reviewer. What you're saying is that the opinion of someone listening to this album for the first time, with no previous knowledge of Bowie, will approach it the same way as someone who owns 30 years worth of his albums.
Bullshit! That just isn't reality. You're right in a sense -- it's time to ditch that lame "70s rock god" nonsense -- and simply realize the man was working on a higher level back then, for whatever reasons. I don't care whether that view is popular or not. You really think people are going to look back and say, "Man, Tin Machine and Bowie's 90's albums were just as good as Station to Station and Ziggy"? To each his own -- I applaud your idiosyncratic take on the world.
There's no crime in admitting Bowie did his best work in the 70's. It doesn't make one "old and silly." If it does, I was old and silly at the age of 18 or so when "Let's Dance" came out and I said, "Man, this album is fluff compared to 'Scarey Monsters.' What's happening to Bowie?" And, believe me, "Tonight" didn't answer that question! You have to understand -- I would love nothing more than for Bowie to put out an album that made his 70's material pale in comparison. At this point in his recording career, that would be great (and apparently miraculous).
Is there a time limit you want to apply to listeners for when you can start pointing out they're full of shit if they don't like a bland, new Bowie album? 30 years, going back to when he started? 20 years, going back to his last great album, "Scarey Monsters"? 10 years, going back to, I don't know, the Glass Spider tour? Where's the cut-off point? Is there one? It's ironic that you have the line about "letting previous glories go and embracing new ones" when you could say the same thing to Bowie about this album. This is cocktail light Bowie -- why he feels the need for this now, I don't know. But honestly, his 90's work may one day be considered his best? In another bizarro universe, maybe, but not this one.
Hats off to you, Bill -- you're a strange bird, and I dig that. But you're falling into traps ("you're an old man if you recognize his 70s material was better" -- can the agism, especially in regards to the recordings of a 50-year-old man) that kids use to spook their parents. I'm hoping for a refutation of my views on 90's Bowie with his next album, but if this one is any indication, I won't be holding my breath.
Name: William G. Ballantyne
Subject: Review: David Bowies 'hours...'
-- Nov 15, 1999 at 2:04AM
If I were a professional reviewer, I would see no reason to involve myself in maintaining a 'cosmic balance' of Bowie opinion, regardless of the fortunes of newcomers to the business, or the possiblity of others writing fawning reviews. Reviewers ought to stick to their job description, and provide straightforward opinion without all the potted history and dodgy character analysis. Despite the myth, Bowie is just a man and deserves his material to be properly addressed without reference to '70's rock god' nonsense. The previous poster believes my template for a review is too idealistic. My response is that the world is full of people who know nothing about Bowie, and have no use for the baggage the reviewer brings. I think its important for the young'uns out there that reviewers clean their ears out regularly. Those that insist on carping about the 70's are really sounding old and silly. Bowie appears to have many young fans who have only listened to perhaps the last two or three albums.
Bowies early work was excellent, but I simply don't accept what I now know to be the popular view of Bowies career. When I first investigated this early material, I had no idea what the popular view of it was. I bought it simply because of my interest in what was then current for him. By the time Tin Machine arrived, I had listened to all of the seventies stuff. My conclusion was that Bowie was steadily producing better and more interesting albums. The music was clearly benefitting from experience and maturity. When one buys ten or more albums and attempts to appreciate them all simultaneously, letting previous glories go and embracing new ones is crucial. When the material is as eclectic as Bowies, even more so.
Consequently, I just don't think Ziggy or Heroes is any better than Hours... I think hours is another successful experiment, partially flawed because of that, but successful nonetheless. To my ears, the quality of ideas, vocals, instruments and exploratory drive has only improved. There have been low points, ironically during that mid eighties period when I first tuned in, but thats long ago now.
In twenty years when Bowie has (probably) passed on and the hysteria which surrounds him has faded, his life work will be reevaluted. I expect the theory that Bowies early work was the only stuff worth listening to will be debunked. Tin Machine will receive their rightful status as some of Bowies very best material, and the 90's will be seen as perhaps Bowies most profoundly creative period. He may outdo himself in the next 10 though !
And another thing. Bowies work *is* occasionally ignored. Most people have never heard of the 'Buddha of Suburbia' album from '94 (?). A real standout, and conceptually similar to Hours...
Name: An LS.n Reader
Subject: Review: David Bowie's 'hours. . .'
-- Nov 12, 1999 at 10:34AM
If Bowie's still kicking twenty years from now, he'll be in a wheelchair, croaking "There's No Business Like Show Business" through a megaphone. I have no idea what Bowie's motivations and problems are. Even better, I don't care what they are. All I care about is the album, which, believe me, I do this for everyone, I'll listen to as if this is the artist's first album. After I hit that point, and I realize I wouldn't have bought the album for no other reason than the name value of the artist, I find it virtually impossible not to go back and compare, especially if said artist is a bit of a genius. You're applying a template to writing reviews that doesn't exist: every album is the same. It isn't. A new album by an unknown artist is far different than one from an artist who has 30 years of experience. That new artist could put out one of the best albums of the year and find it totally ignored. Whereas Bowie could make an album even worse than hours... and find it a top 10 hit, or, worse, reviewed positively by people either are being instructed to give a good review or are afraid to take a poke at a legend. Which isn't to paint myself as some kind of hero -- I wanted to like this album, as I want to like every Bowie album. I think your mini-review hits on an idea: "... packed with curious moments and interesting ideas. Just like any good Bowie album." Exactly. Just like one, but not quite being one. I expect better from him.
Name: William G. Ballantyne
Subject: Re: Hours review
-- Nov 12, 1999 at 12:04AM
C'mon Bill, what I've written hardly consitutes a review. I just said I liked it.
What is clearly inane is your silly attempt at analysing Bowies motivations and problems. What you should do is forget what you 'think' Bowie is doing and judge this stuff on a purely artistic level. My perception is that Bowie and Gabrels have worked hard and long on an album packed with curious moments and interesting ideas. Just like any good Bowie album.
In twenty years, I'll be listening to the music of the day and perhaps even Bowie if he's still kicking. And I won't be thinking 'if only it was like hours...'. Keep trying to let that past go Bill !
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: Hours review
-- Nov 11, 1999 at 10:58PM
Bill, let's check in 20 years from now and compare notes on hours... It's a bad album. I know bad albums when I hear them. I especially know bad Bowie albums when I hear them, as he's put out some of the best albums ever. There is no direction on this album. He's trying to reel in old fans who might have gotten lost on Earthling and Outside, but he can't function on that level anymore. But don't take my word for it! Buy the album and decide for yourselves, folks. As for your inane quip about "long-term Bowie fans should probably avoid writing reviews," er, uh, Bill, didn't you just do the same thing?
Name: William G. Ballantyne
Subject: Re: Hours review
-- Nov 11, 1999 at 10:28PM
This review is a good example of why long term Bowie fans should probably avoid writing reviews. Its a pity when a Bowie fan misses the one truly valuable lesson he has for us ; how to let the past go. Let Bowies back catalog stay in the past where it belongs. I believe this new material has just as much to offer as any of his 'classic' albums (along with the rest of the 90's material), but the Bowie fan must exercise the discipline required to listen objectively. What has struck me after owning 'hours...' for a few weeks now has been the transition from recognising the familiar in the music for the first few listenings, to a realisation of its distinct character. This album delivers the goods, the only problem I have would be that its a little short. The excellent additional tracks released on the singles remedied that though.
I found it ironic that the reviewer mentions that fans have often been confused about Bowies direction even very early on, and then falls into the same trap himself. Live for now Mr Repsher.
Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: Bowie Hours Review
-- Oct 23, 1999 at 10:58PM
The good thing about Bowie is that he's always ending in some sense. When he made Young Americans, his fans didn't know what to do. They get even more confused when Low came out. When those critically-heralded albums (Low/Heroes/Lodger) came out, a lot of his fans didn't know what to do. If it wasn't for a hit single like "Heroes" he might have really gone off the deep end. What I always loved about Bowie was that I never knew what to expect, a condition which stopped going away right after Let's Dance. Stuff like Tin Machine, Outside and Earthling are interesting, but not on the level os his past experiments. This album, strangely enough, I knew exactly what to expect even before hearing it, and unfortunately got it. Beginning of the end? I'm surprised he's still going! But if his recent VH-1 special (where he did truly awful versions of many of his songs) is any indication, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Name: DJ
Subject: Bowie Hours Review
-- Oct 23, 1999 at 1:41AM
very interesting and painfully honest in many ways. Having been a long term Bowie Fan and being very excited about Hours.. I loved it when I first heard it, simply because it was new... but... after 2 weeks. I slowly came to the realization that it wasn't anything new.. just cut up lyrics and music pulled from his entire career.. Is this the beginning of the end ?
|
