How is this album anything more than decent pop-rock songs and

>>72692872
Exactly. No response

>>72693096
What were you expecting from /mu/?
It's exactly like you said, pop music loved by listened by your dad and mom when they were young and because they said that it was better than the current pop shit of today, youngsters thought that was the case.
I'm sure that the "patricians" of those days considered this album a mainstream commodity.

>entire album is either fun artsy pop rock songs or good eno ambient pieces
>"i don't get it"

wtf do you want me to say pham?

File: dakrew.jpg (655KB, 2048x1061px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 2048x1061px

I agree with this the premise of this thread but OP needs to fuck off

black star video was some DUMB creepy stuff. god damn its the kind of "art" you want to autisticaly screech away.

>>72693260
Nah I get the album, it's fine. I wouldn't really say the pop rock songs are "artsy", but I digress. What I don't get is how it's regarded as so amazing, so influential, such a landmark album, when it's really nothing special

>>72693506
well what do you consider "artsy"? and what even sounds like Low prior to it's release?

>>72693506
yeah man like whats even the point of music man its all just noise man

>>72693622
What makes Low so unique?

>>72692872
All this stuff you say referencing weren't concrete ideas during the creation of this at 1966 or so. Bowie had a massive impact of the pop scene and other genres(including the pop-rock music you want to attribute it to).

Additionally eno did play a big part in the whole album but completely attributing the creation of the ambient pieces to him are disingenuous, bowie played a great part in this entire album.

Imo you are just judging this album ignoring the time and context it was created in. Rather just ignorantly putting it forth compared to every other album in the past 20 years (and excluding the fact those same artists you compare to were inspired by Bowie himself).

File: 1494240190917.png (27KB, 544x593px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 544x593px

>>72693843
OP btfo

>>72693762
i'm not saying low's the greatest album ever, but other than heroes (which low is an evolution of), nothing sounds like it prior to it's release

>>72693843
>All this stuff you say referencing weren't concrete ideas during the creation of this at 1966 or so.

You're 11 years off so that's a start

>Bowie had a massive impact of the pop scene and other genres(including the pop-rock music you want to attribute it to).

I know Bowie has had a massive influence but this is exactly what I mean - I can't even call the importance of THIS ONE PARTICULAR ALBUM into question without being told "Oh so you just think Bowie is a talentless hack and nothing he's ever done is good or influential?". And I'm not comparing him to the pop-rock music of nowadays, I'm comparing it to the pop rock music that Bowie himself made before this album

>and excluding the fact those same artists you compare to were inspired by Bowie himself

I'm not comparing the album to anyone, I never did. If anything I'm comparing the album to PREVIOUS Bowie albums. The pop rock songs on this album just aren't interesting

>>72693946
Ok, then help me out here. What makes Low so unique for its time frame? When I listen to that first half, I don't hear anything particularly unique or interesting

Why are you obsessed with the idea of "uniqueness" OP? You can't listen to something unless it's totally different or groundbreaking? Sounds like you're listening to music for the wrong reasons. You can just like something because it sounds good.

And on that last point, you want us to somehow "explain" what is good about it? Music doesn't work like this. You either like something or you don't, and you're not expected to like every album you listen to. Don't like it? There's a million other albums out there. Stupid fucking thread if ever there was one.

>>72694012
Holy shit dude work on your reading comprehension. I'm not asking what makes this album GOOD. I LIKE Low. I think it's good enjoyable music. I am asking why this album has been heralded as super experimental, unique, and memorable. I'm not asking what makes the album good, I'm asking why so many people see it as groundbreaking. I never asked what makes it GOOD. I asked what makes it UNIQUE, what makes it worthy of its critical reception as some amazing landmark album

>>72694044
Read the wikipedia article if you want to know all that shit. You think anyone on /mu/ is going to provide a tenth of the insight that the wiki article will?

>>72694060
How about we just shut down /mu/ and read wikipedia articles about anything we care about instead of having discussions?

>>72694172
For pointless as shit threads like this, I agree totally. You are asking us why critics liked it. How about you READ THE FUCKING REVIEWS by these critics. Wow imagine that?

>>72693972
listen to the music coming at the time. granted, there are albums in there that could be considered more "artsy", but for it's time, low was a fairly strange album that still managed to be catchy pop music. sure, the ideas on the album have since been taken to whole other heights, but i don't think you can really hold that against low

>>72694207
I'm giving it the context of its time and I don't see what's really artsy or unique about it. Is it the melodies? The instruments? The subject matter? None of it seems PARTICULARLY unique

>>72694232
okay, how bout this, you name me some more unique albums from around the time of low's release

>>72694232
You're basically rephrasing the same post over and over. No answer in this thread has been good enough. Just fuck off already.

>>72694287
And y'all aren't answering the question. I AM ASKING: What makes the album unique? What aspects make it different from Bowie's other works in a remarkable way? All y'all are saying is "Bowie is influential" "Find me another album like it" "It's a classic"

>>72693506
>>72692872
i'm not going to read this whole thread of people shitting on you for having an opinion. but you should know i had the same exact reaction the first time i heard Low and continue to feel the same

holy shit this is embarrassing for both of you

>>72694326
I never claimed Low was this super special album. You went in expecting it to be. You know music is subjective right? Maybe you don't think it's groundbreaking and maybe there's nothing wrong with that. It's clear no explanation is going to satisfy you.

>>72692872
I actually agree. I think he did it 10x better on Heroes.

>>72694355
There is no clear explanation going on though, you realize that? This ENTIRE thread has been
>What makes Low so unique?
>It's unique
>Yeah but like what makes it unique?
>Find me a more unique album
>Yeah but what aspects qualify it as "unique"? The production? The songwriting? The instruments used? The song structure? What aspects qualify this album as unique?
>It was fairly strange for its time
>What makes it so?
>Name albums that are more unique

Also I know music is subjective but it is an objective fact that the majority of the music community, both listeners and professionals/critics/etc. cite it as special and groundbreaking, and I am asking specifically for WHY they see it that way

>>72694334
i don't think you understand just how fucking boring and dull music was back then. low is literally considered to be a "experimental" and "art" album cause nothing sounds like it (other than heroes), i don't know what more you want me to say! it combines funk, pop rock, ambient, synthpop, and art rock all into one, and i'd even goes as far as callig it a proto new-wave album. nobody else was doing anything even remotely similar

>>72694361
The people here are afraid to place Heroes above Low though because Heroes is popular with the normies. Low is a nice safe alternative to still seem hip.

>>72694386
>I am asking specifically for WHY they see it that way
I answered this several posts ago. If you want to know why critics in 1977 thought the way they did, go read their reviews. They will be infinitely more insightful than any of us could be. If you want to continue arguing in circles on a Nepalese basket-weaving forum, be my guest.

>>72694423
>I answered this several posts ago
No you didn't, you just kept saying it is unique

>>72694427
And you're the person who gave ME shit for reading comprehension? God you're a moron. Enjoy your thread, I'll find another one.

>>72694441
You didn't say shit besides "listen to other albums from its time"

>>72694465
thats a different guy, i'm the one you've been going back and forth with this whole time, also, this is my final answer here >>72694390

>>72694465
I'm going to link to every single post I've done in this thread since you're struggling with the fact that not ever anonymous poster is the same person.
>>72694012
>>72694060
>>72694196
>>72694287
>>72694355
>>72694423
>>72694441
There you go. Goodnight retard.

ugh how are you two still going?

if you have any understanding of how pop music sounded back then, proceed to listen to this album with that in mind and *still* fail to register what Low does that was ahead of the curve you really ought to give up on music. it's very possible similar ideas had been explored by other artists, but Bowie's stardom is central here; shit like this wasn't happening in the mainstream.

>>72694423
not him but that's not really accurate considering how many critics dismissed it at its release.

>>72694477
>>72694480
Which one is it? You said it's a different guy but it obviously isnt

>>72694498
>not him but that's not really accurate considering how many critics dismissed it at its release.
Then he should find some positive reviews that will answer his questions. Why is this so hard to figure out? If it took till 85 for people to say it was groundbreaking than find the reviews from 85. Okay I'm not going to post anymore this is such a retarded thread. I think OP just wanted someone to talk to or something.

>>72694397
Heroes is a lot better though desu. Both the A and B sides are better, low is still amazing though

>>72694498
HOW THE FUCK is it different? How?? You dumbasses keep saying "It's SO DIFFERENT from other music coming out back then!" But you never say how or why. I'm asking for specific examples. If someone asked me why a Burzum album was different from a Talking Heads album I wouldn't just say "they're SO different", I'd give specific examples about how one is different from the other in stylings, topics, ideas, etc

>>72694527
I wanted someone who has a good enough reading comprehension to answer simple god damn questions.

>>72694510
i guess there's been two of us, but if it really matters i'm
>>72693260
>>72693622
>>72693946
>>72694207
>>72694261
>>72694477

but like i said >>72694390 is my final answer, i'm going to bed pham. if you don't think it's a unique or artsy album whatever, not everyone is gonna agree on everything here, as a matter of fact, they usually don't. i'm sure there are plenty of albums i don't get the hype for, but whatever

>>72694587
> it combines funk, pop rock, ambient, synthpop, and art rock all into one, and i'd even goes as far as callig it a proto new-wave album

that's the closest I've gotten to an actual answer besides "no one else was doing it" (what is IT? that was my whole question) and "name something more experimental". Thanks

>>72694542
lmao if you have friends that need to have their differences explained then they're deaf and/or retarded.

in your hypothetical scenario this friend of yours has obviously not listened to the music (for reasons made obvious), yet you claim to have listened to Low. and your functioning ears — combined with an understanding of pop history — still don't yield any answers? jfc just s t o p.

>>72694601
your welcome pham. have a good one

>>72694608
That was an extreme example not a completely accurate analogy dumbass. What I'm saying is, in that situation, I'd say something like "Talking Heads is more dance-y and focused on rhythms and grooves, and has relatively high-quality production and traditional song structure. Burzum is more focused on raw power and energy, with intentionally lo-fi mixing and long complex songs". I wouldn't just say "they're different" "find me a band that's more different" "they're different because they are"

>>72693958
>And I'm not comparing him to the pop-rock music of nowadays
>I'm not comparing the album to anyone
>IM ONLY COMPARING TO PAST BOWIE OMGGGGG

"How is this album anything more than decent pop-rock songs"

Try to be a little less disingenuous please....

>>72694659
How am I disingenuous? Even the best pop songs on Low aren't as smart or fun as Queen Bitch, Moonage Daydream, even Golden Years

>>72694060

? The critics in the wikipedia article admit that the album has avant-garde pretensions, but they don't seem to really care or to give deep insight into why it is original.

As a matter of fact, OP was NOT asking why "critics" thought it was original (which, from reading their actual reviews, they don't), he was asking why it is heralded as experimental on this board. There is no answer, because it is not original.

David Bowie was an absolutely terrible artist and musician, and the world is better off with him having died.

File: beatings.png (105KB, 500x403px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x403px

>>72694715
take it easy edgelord

>>72694701
Even if you weren't insincere, you are now essentially starting the subjective vs objective debate that happens constantly in mu.

I will say those songs you named aren't the best objectively. You will name some arbitrary concepts of value to songs to "prove" the value of the songs you chose as the "best". I won't agree and the whole cycle will continue.

>>72694743
But what makes the songs on Low so special? Obviously there's something people see in it, even if I dont

>>72694608

>OMFFGGGG it's like, obviouss ommffggg

Yet more evidence that nobody on /mu/ can actually substantiate their opinions. You are so non-knowledgeable about the history of music that you cannot even name any influences, modifications, or original contributions of Low, even if it's in a fake, incorrect, or imprecise manner. Hilarious.

>>72694765
>But what makes the songs on Low so special?
Dude there are literally hundreds of positive reviews on Low. It doesn't take a fucking genius to just google this or search RYM.
Either you are actively trying to be a contrarian or just look for answers on 4chan cause you are bored/lonely.

>>72694780

But of course, it's all fake, just like the descriptive history of music mostly consists of fake categories, which is why something like King Crimson is considered part of a sub-genre of "rock" that was originally referring to what Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly waere doing. Popular music is replete with sloppy language.

>>72694787
This is exactly what I mean
>What makes the songs so special?
>THEY'RE SO SPECIAL AND UNIQUE
>Yes but what makes them that way
>THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO SAY SO

>>72692872
I also don't get why this is so praised. I've seen many people who consider this his best album. This album is utterly mediocre in every aspect. There were better pop songs than the A-side in his discography, and those ambient pieces are extremely far from being as memorable as Eno's works of around the same time.
It's feels like he was trying to make his own Tago Mago but for mainstream audience on both Low and Heroes, where the latter happened to be way less sterile.

>>72694787

Link one positive review that correctly explains why Low is original. You are calling him a contrarian because you are upset, and imagined Bowie to be some eccentric genius when he was in fact a very bland artist.

>>72694829
Alright then what do you think makes a song "special and unique". Tell me the traits you believe are required to make a song "special and unique".

You are applying AND for some stupid reason looking for objective opinions regarding songs/albums and sorry to tell you kiddo but that doesn't fucking exist.

>>72694654
yeah I understood that and attempted to mock you. your extreme analogy was and is complete bullshit.

>>72694848

So now we move to goalpost shifting instead of appeals to authority.

>Why is it unique
>Because others say so
>That doesn't really answer my question
>Uhhh umm Define "unique"

>>72694866

>I-I was le trolling

LOL!!!! This thread is hilarious. Thank God that people like you are so upset and Thank God that David Bowie died of cancer :)

>>72694848
I'm not looking for OBJECTIVE reasons, I'm looking to understand people's subjective reasoning even if I don't agree. But since you asked: Since we're talking about an artist who is firmly seated in the pop music canon (IE, Im not gonna have as high of a bar for uniqueness or experimentation as I would for a Merzbow or John Zorn), I'd say: unique song structure, unconventional usage of time signature/melody, instruments you don't typically hear in pop-rock, esoteric lyricism/vocal style/singing, songs comprised of multiple parts (like, the song evolving and taking a new form) - these are just some things that could be in a song that would qualify it as being "unique" from just other standard pop rock songs

>>72694868
Other than "appeal to authority" or "Argumentum ad populum" what is there you fucking moron?

Again this relates back to the subjective vs objective music debate you imbecile. THAT is the core argument we are having but you fucking keep relating it to my or other opinions of the album Low. But when I tell you that you can just google people's opinions about the album you're like "BUT FUCKING TELL ME WHY PEOPLE LIKE IT?!?!?!?!"

Holy fuck man

OP here, I should clarify that I am not >>72694868
or >>72694877

>>72694901
Refer to >>72694915
But without the as aggressive tone. Look if you require "opinions" about an album there are many ESPECIALLY for a david bowie record.

>>72694901
and a simple example like the first half being pop (of a more experimental variation) and the second half being ambient isn't enough, then? because you (assuming you're OP) were aware of that from the get-go.

>>72694946
>Pop (of a more experimental variation)
I've been asking how it's more experimental, but furthermore

Making one half of an album a different genre isn't experimental or laudable. I can make an album that's ok rap music on one side and ok thrash metal on the other. It doesn't make it experimental or boundary-pushing
>>72694944
I'm not the person that that guy was replying to

>>72694915

Taste is subjective, innovations are less subjective. Do you really think that there were no significant musical inventions from Chuck Berry to something like MBV that could be pinpointed? You're confusing imprecision with complete subjectivity and it defies credulity that innovations, but not taste, would be completely subjective. You're also confusing the subjectivity of extent and importance of the innovations with the innovations themselves.

>>72694979
I meant >>72694931
Fuck lol

Anyways I'm done with this shitshow of a thread.

>>72694996
Alright then write us an outline about "significant musical inventions" and quit wasting everyone's time if you already know the answers

>>72694999

This thread was hilarious.

>Hey give me your opinions on why you thought it was unique guys I don't see it

>REEEE ARE YOU TRYING TO ATTACK OUR SACRED COW REEEEEEE!!!!!

Thankfully, Bowie died in January 2016. HIP HIP HOORAY!!!

>>72695017
OP here, jsyk that's not me you're talking to. But they're summing up what I'm asking in a relatively accurate fashion

>>72693946
>i'm not saying low's the greatest album ever, but other than heroes (which low is an evolution of), nothing sounds like it prior to it's release

Give Eno's "Another Green World" a spin.

And it's Low, then Heroes.

>>72695068
Give the inferior half of Station to Station a spin and then the inferior half of Another Green World. You just made Low

File: pepconfus.png (8KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x201px

>>72695168
>inferior half of Another Green World

So this is the dumbest fucking thread on /mu/ right?

>>72695408
yes

>>72695408
yes its really painful to read because of all the non answers people are giving

Lodger is my favourite of the "tryptich", it's raw and everyone sounds like they're having a lot of fun.

>>72696547
>"tryptich"
don't put quotes around a word for no reason, just don't spell it wrong next time ok?

>>72695030
Edgy

>84 replies
>19 posters
holy fucking shit dude