Talk:David Bowie

Nietzsche / Agnosticism

I second the idea of adding Nietzsche to Bowie's history page. Nietzsche and Crowley were both huge influences on early 70's bowie. Quicksand, would be more accurately attributed to Nietzsche/Crowley than buddhism. His continual Agnostic theme of cutting apart other people's works and piecing them together as something new should be mentioned somewhere as well. For an example, refer to the numerous sources of inspiration for the song "Starman" Vellon 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Okay, I know this guy is diverse, but do you actually have to ad every genre that he ever did any song in in the info-box? Look at the arrangment at the Queen article, it had like 15 genres there at first but got shortened to three, and the rest in a section of its own. It sure as hell looks better.--Gustav Lindwall 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand with Tina Turner?

I watched a documentary about Tina Turner once and there was a bit in it that showed Tina Turner on stage with david Bowie performing and before the duo started singing David Bowie wispered something to Tina Turner that caused her to laugh out loud and the person doing the commentary on the docu said that David Bowie had said something along the lines of 'my dick is hard thinking about last night'. Does anyone know if they did have a one night stand?TammiMagee 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter?

Nietzsche in early lyrics

I was wondering, how come no one even mentions the influence of Nietzsche on his early lyrics? I'd like to know a little more about it, and the references in the lyrics are so many and so obvious that i'm surprised the topic isn't covered. 81.39.169.176 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sketches belong on fridges, not in encyclopedias

Cute drawing of Bowie up there. However, it's a sketch after all, and whoever drew it should send it into their local community college, not post it in an encyclopedia. There are many non-copywritten photos out there; a sketch is an abstraction of a photo, and thus artistic, not factual. Stop putting it up there.

Jackmont, Dec 17, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. A photograph should be added and the drawing should definitely be removed.

Nature Boy

Bowie sings two versions of the song 'Nature Boy' on the Moulin Rouge soundtrack, one with Massive Attack. Beck sings Bowie's 'Diamond Dogs'.

Personal Life

Shouldn't there be a section listed with just only his personal life stuff, such as early life, marital & parental status, etc.?

:::there WAS a section about his personal life, i could SWEAR! it talks about his first marriage & his son, and then his subsequent marriage to Iman. WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THAT SECTION?!? or did i just get lost in the lengthy & wordy paragraphs?!? --HatchetFaceBuick 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC):::

Picture

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that thinks that the picture currently in the article is one of the most inappropriate/uninformative that could possibly have been used? 66.229.182.113 03:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the image is one of the few available that are not protected by copyright. If you know of a better image in the public domain or if you have a photo you took yourself and you are willing to give up your copyrights, then you should let us know about it. Bowie's persona is certainly stronger and brighter than the image we now have, but I think we're pretty much stuck with it. Ande B 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were pictures we could use - a lot of people have taken photos at his concerts, perhaps we should email some fansites for permission? It might even be wise to drop a line to Total Blam Blam at Bowienet. Mikeguy

The sketch of Bowie looks tacky and extremely obsessed-fan-esque.

Jackmont, Dec 17, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I think it's fine. You can't deny the drawing is accurate, and even recent. And you certainly wouldn't mind, I assume you don't, a drawing or painting of someone dead before the invention of photography. At least you wouldn't call that inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.39.169.176 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

I think the sketch is perfect for this article as it shows Bowie clearly without overemphisizing any of his various phases. However it appears to be a tracing of this image, with only minor alterations. This would mean it is not under the GNU license. Correct? Tlsg 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad amateur drawing. Whoever keeps posting it should set up their own website to display their pictures, not hijack wikipedia.

Birthplace

The writer has been led to believe that David Bowie was actually born in Doncaster Royal Infirmary; although there is no suggestion that, at the time, his parents were permanently resident anywhere other than the London address given. Of course this may be some sort of mythology created by his Doncaster fans (there is no reason known that Mr. Jones (senior) might have wanted David to play cricket for Yorkshire), but there is no firm evidence cited to the contrary. As David is still alive; and members of his family may possibly still be alive, is there anyone with any firm proof as to where Bowie was born?

I see that his father is from Yorkshire. Is there any further information out there that might clarify this possible story of David being born in Doncaster Royal Infirmary? Perhaps his dad, as a Yorkshireman, did want his son to have the option of playing cricket for Yorkshire? (The Yokshire cricket club had a strict rule, since relaxed slightly but not completely, that to play for the club you had to have been born in the county)

David Bowie is a being from another planet. his people developed interstellar travel by the time most of the people reading this were simply tubesock fodder. they are a peaceful consciousness. that is all i know, because i am engaged to a half-interstellar being. she is lovely and she doesn't bullshit.

Ah! that explains it! They called in at Donny on their way to London, and caught the inter-city (or whatever the steam trains were called).

Headline text

The photo with the legend "performing Rebel Rebel" seems earlier. I seem to remember him performing it on TOTP with footage from the American TV programme Soul Train. He was in a blue suit, blue earth shoes and slicked-back yellow-orange hair. Remember, this was even after Philly Dogs when he had abandoned the Ziggy hair. This photo seems to be Pin-Ups period.

--- User:Jigsawpuzzleman 13 July 2005

Oh, believe me, he has performed Rebel Rebel MANY times. There is a famous music video where he appeared on a promo spot in 1974 on VH1, where he came out wearing this new outfit... adding an eyepatch and psuedo-pirate getup to the Ziggy hair that he was still wearing. On the spot, they played the recording and he lipsynched. The episode of soul train would probably have been in late 1975, when he'd already gone on and released Young Americans.

What I AM concerned about is this explosion of photos. They seem a little excessive and poorly placed.

--- User:Mikeguy 4 September 2005

I stand corrected. Mind you, it's far from being his greatest composition in my opinion.

Jigsawpuzzleman 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the caption on the 1973 pic. Shots with the sun symbol on his forehead are from the 1973 Aladdin Sane tour, so it seems incorrect to call the character Ziggy Stardust. BTLizard 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This page is getting very long. This is arising from the as yet incomplete description of the albums. Wouldn't be better to put such descriptions on separate pages linked from the main page?

Should the Chart information (such as Billboard) be on a separate page too?

In the current format it is difficult to update the album list. A new album Reality has been released this month.

--- User:Karl Palmen 29 Sept 2003

I agree. The information on each album should be located at a page on those albums, not here. The Billboard information for Bowie's career I had added a while back to see how it looks on the one page. I have mixed opinions on that, and wouldn't mind it being moved to something like David Bowie's chart positions. Tuf-Kat 13:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking that for a while (especially with the discography between two bits of actual text.) I'm tempted to move it to David Bowie discography. In fact, I think I will be bold... User:GWO

---

Today, living in New York with his second wife, Iman and their daughter, Bowie remains a dynamic, ever-changing artist.

I (reluctantly) changed that despite seeing him at the Garden last night. It's probably true, but it's POV. Also, there's the wrong number of commas.

Incidentally, does anyone know the daughter's name? --Charles A. L. 18:22, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Her name is Alexandria. --Roo72 00:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Uh.. I did that Eno correction a while back. The reason for that was that Eno was just a musician, not a producer or a principal songwriter for the Berlin trilogy albums. Evidence: http://pitchforkmedia.com/top/70s/index10.shtml (see the last review on the page, of Bowie's "Low") and http://www.tonyvisconti.com/news/june04.htm (producer Tony Visconti quotes Pitchforkmedia and doesn't seem to disagree.. I'd think there would be a reaction?). The phrase 'collaborated with Brian Eno', in my eyes, helps spreading the false rumour that Eno produced those records. I'm not sure on how to correct this. - Jashiin

Collarobated means "worked together" and work together they did. Check any biography of BOwie or Eno. It's not a "rumour".

I'm not trying to say they didn't work together. I'm trying to say that a rumor exists that Eno produced those records, and it is not true. Bowie worked with a LOT of people on those albums, Eno was just one of those people, just another musician. Eno is famous, yes, so what? Visconti is a famous producer as well, known for T.Rex releases for instance. Or Alomar, who played guitar on Low, he's pretty well-known too. What about them? In my eyes, there is no reason to single Eno out when speaking about Low or Heroes.. - Jashiin

I don't know what rumors you are talking about but the article on Wiki does not say that Eno produced his albums, just that he worked with Bowie. He should be singled out however because he did have a huge influence on Bowie and those albums - again, ready any biography on those two guys.--Roo72 12:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I wanted to hear, reasons for singling Eno out. Case closed :) - Jashiin

Well, "Heroes" is credited to Bowie/Eno, as are "Warszawa", "Art Decade" "Neuköln" from the Low period. That sounds like collaboration to me. Secondly, Visconti had been Bowie's producer for years, so its not interesting that he's still working with him. Thirdly, Bowie's said at length how Eno's working methods heavily influenced those albums and anyone with ears can hear Eno's influence all over those records. Fifthly, here's a Bowie webchat on that issue http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/chats/dbchattvmrdb1298.htm :

Question: do you regret the fact that a lot of people think Eno produced "Low", "Heroes" and "Lodger"?

Tony Visconti: Brian is a great musician, and was very integral to the making of those three albums. -- GWO

Well, that clears it up.. There's that rumour I've been talking about, too. Thanks :) - Jashiin

List Bowie Albums

Including albums he sang in like Queen's Under Presure. I was very curious about how many albums he's made/contributed to. User Hmoleman00

Under Pressure is a song, not an album.

---

Surprisingly little on Labyrinth, considering it is a musical and David Bowie features prominantly in the film and album, composing and performing half the tracks on the album along with Trevor Jones. Plus it's Great ;) --BathTub 15:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look

Birthday

"On 9 January 1997, Bowie played a concert at Madison Square Garden to celebrate his 50th birthday (although his birthday was the previous day). Guest performers included Billy Corgan, Frank Black, Sonic Youth, Robert Smith of The Cure, Brian Molko, and Lou Reed whose 1972 album Transformer Bowie co-produced."

The new album

Where are all the rumors coming from? Is the name "Me, Myself and I" confirmed? Sometime ago it was just "TBA" ;) I would be thankful for clarifying :)

I was the one that added this. I read it in a recent article/interview with DB, but now I can't remember the source. I have not been able to confirm it elsewhere, so maybe it should be left out for now. Stanley Lieber 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence describing "Berlin Trilogy" -anybody able to fix?

I noticed the second paragraph of the "Overview" section currently reads " The so-called "Berlin Trilogy", although receiving mixed commercial success at the time." Needs the rest of the sentence. I'm not sure what it should say or I'd fix it myself. Thanks.--63.201.91.208 00:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Original final part of the sentence ("is seen by many today as masterful and groundbreaking") got lost somewhere along the line these past few weeks. Have partially restored but changed "masterful", which I think was a bit OTT even though I personally agree with the assessment. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

kissed ronsons guitar?

um, people, that rather famous incident is not best described as "kissing" mick ronsons guitar. how about a little less prudishness and a bit more historical truth?

i heard he performed 'felatio' to it, but either way... AlexOvShaolin 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a colour photo of the incident contained in the 636 page book "Alias David Bowie" by Peter and Leni Gillman, ISBN:0-450-41346-8. The comprehensive title was compiled after interviewing over 150 friends, relatives, colleagues, teachers, etc (and even lists the names of all the interviewees), and covers family history from before he was born through to about 1985, and gives quite a bit of insight into David's half-brother Terry and the probable influence David's family and upbringing have had in relation to his writing style. Anyway, that particular photo clearly shows something a little more violent than a humble kiss ...

Heart attack

Corrected the information about Bowie's surgery in July 2004. He has since admitted he had suffered a heart attack, and not just a narrowed artery.

Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that category:David Bowie singles shouldn't be merged into category:David Bowie songs, as all the others except the ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Toy

Okay, I know I've been a bit picky, and even a tone sarcastic in my measures to prevent its inclusion, but why is Toy being included in the article's discography of released studio albums by David Bowie when it has no confirmed release date or information and there is already sufficient information about the album within the article? I'm sorry, but it seems to go against the idea of a discography to include albums that were not released, have not been promoted as upcoming releases, and (despite the existance of some studio recordings) may not even be in final condition. The songs exist, the sessions occurred, and the project was attempted, but that does not constitute as making the set of songs originally planned for an album release a confirmed album. I suppose it would interest you to know that David Bowie has other unreleased material that was originally planned for an album, such as Tin Machine III or 2. Contamination. Should these albums, with no confirmable release date, be included in the discography because they "might" be released eventually? David Bowie "might" release another album of cover songs, according to interviews; should "Pin-Ups 2" be included in the discography? Bowie seems to enjoy jazz music and says he'd like to make a jazz album someday; should "As-Of-Yet Untitled Jazz Album" be included in the discography? Seriously, when you delve into the world of what David Bowie "might" do, you could probably include thousands of whims and ideas he has come accross and, as a result, pollute the article with enough extra information to turn it into a shopping cart of David Bowie's thoughts, which, though amusing, is completely inappropriate for the situation. If you can show me the confirmation that Toy WILL be released, I will appreciate that immensly. And even if it IS confirmed to be an upcoming release, put it at the bottom of the list so that it is sequentially proper, it isn't like I'll suddenly REMEMBER it was released between Hours and Heathen. Mikeguy 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a splendidly-controlled and carefully-argued rant, Mike - and I agree with you 100%...! At best it should perhaps be mentioned in the body of article if it really inspires such interest but the Discography? Nah. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to change it and leave a message NOT to include it again and to discuss any discontent with this motion in the talk page. Mikeguy 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Toy should be included. Gerry Leonard, one of Bowie's studio musicians, lists it in his discogprashy. Also, there are remnants of the album existing on B-sides to the singles from the albums "Heathen". Examples include: Wood Jackson, Baby Loves That Way, and Conversation Piece. Just because the album hasn't been release yet doesn't mean it sholdn't be included. The sessions happened and it is a packaged album. There are a few copies floating out there, despite the fact that there has been no "official" release, and it should be treated as an album. Just because there is no release date does not mean it should not be included. Bowie himslef said he will release it at one point. To review, Bowie Has confirmed the album, there are songs from the albums used as b-sides, it is listed in other musicians discographies, and it is accepted in the BowieNet community as an album that has yet to be released but it none the less finished. JBScout21 1:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but who is Gerry Leonard? Toy wasn't in David Buckley's discography last time I looked and I don't think Nicholas Pegg considers it a 'proper' album. As I've said earlier, there's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned briefly in the main body of the article at the appropriate point but to include it in the discography still seems premature at this stage. If there are indeed "a few copies floating out there" then that sounds like the equivalent of bootlegs, which we don't list either. If Bowie has indeed said he will issue it at some point, then point us to the press release, and I don't mean on BowieNet but in an open forum - cite an official announcement and then we can consider it. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Leonard was the musical director of the Heathen and Reality Tours. David Buckley's biography AND Nicholas Pegg also mentioned it in his discography as well. Yes, there is no album review of it but it was mentioned as a to be released album. David Bowie has stated in interviews and numerous journal entries on his site that the album has been compleated and the problem is with the distributor. The pieces out there were B-Sides from the singles that were released from Heathen NOT bootlegs. Bowie also stated on his site that TOY is finished and that he is having issues with the distributor. Specifically his journal entry on Wednesday July 4th, 2001 in which he states "TOY is finished but I'm having unbelievably complicated scheduling negotiations with my record company." Those are his words on his site and what more can one ask for? Further through the journal entry he states that "I have just kept on writing and intend to start the Visconti album very soon." This album was what would become Heathen. The pieces out in the world are B-Sides not bootlegs. BowieNet is a place where Bowie has spoken about his projects and work and there is no reason why that shouldn't be good enough word. To top off the rest of this argument whatever wasn't a B-side is not a smuggled bootleg but archived from various peaks Bowie has given of it on bowie durring 2001-2002 when he was in the post-producation stages of the album. Many non-BowieNeters do not have acess to this because it was released "inside the site" for memebers only. Sorry if you can't get the proof you want because you are not a member. I am and I have checked all of this information twice. TOY stays whether you think it should count or not. The songs are copyrighted and the album is complete, all that is left is a release which Bowie has stayed commited to doing. What more proof do you want!?! I will wait a week fore any other reasons before I put TOY back up in the discography. JBScout21 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Count me in as somebody a bit bemused by the inclusion of a non-released album in Bowie's discography. Any long-term fan of Bowie knows full well his wandering and fickle creative eye - witness the 1.Outside debacle for example. Do we include the other albums that were to form part of this work in his discography? I am sure I could find something online to say he is keen to work on them... but that doesn't mean they end up as part of his discography. An album should only be on the list if it is one that was able to or is able to be purchased in a record store. And what about that album he released to BowieNet members? Surely that has as much right to be on this list as Toys? As much as I would love to see Toys released the chances of that happening now are next to zero, especially now with tracks from it forming b-sides to singles of the TWO albums he has released since. If he was having such "unbelievably complicated scheduling negotiations" then how come he has managed to release two albums since (and conduct a world tour to boot!). Toys should NOT be on the discography list until I can go down to my local record store and buy it.Mmm commentaries 00:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been other non-released albums Bowie has done, but none that we have so much proof that they actually exist as Toy has. As to some of the arguments, the fact that Gerry Leonard's discography mentions it doesn't count for much. Carlos Alomar's website used to claim he played on Another Face (or one of those Deramn cash-in albums anyway) when he most certainly didn't. On the opposing side, the album released only to Bowienet members is a compilation of live material and remixes, not a proper studio album. And there can be complicated negotiations related to releasing Toy because he recorded it under his Virgin contract (but Virgin refused to release it), and presumably he'd want to release it under his ISO records label. And after all this, it's really all the same whether you include it no the discography or not. But I would like to point out a lot of websites and books do list it in their "main" discographies. -- Kjet 11:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially released, so it has no place in a discography. As for 'it will definitely be released at some point' and 'just because there isn't a release date...', surely that's speculation, and falls under WP:CRYSTAL? Fatjabba 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to reiterate my earlier position on this when it was last discussed. We can certainly mention it in the body of the article under the appropriate section but the discography should be reserved for officially-released albums. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I decided to be bold and delete it from the Discography. Apologies if this starts a war. Fatjabba 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Eye?

My friend and I just spoke, and she said that Bowie had an artificial eye, yet Wiki says he has heterochromia and can see in his injured eye. Is there any other source that has info on this?

---

Check any of the listed sites (especially BBC news), they'll tell you that neither of Bowie's eyes are artificial, although I must remark that the injured eye (which he can see through with faulty depth perception) appears to be artificial due to its permanate dialation.

Mikeguy

Well....from what I know and my years of being a big fan lol. Apparently when David Bowie was 14 years old he was punched in the left eye in Highschool by good friend George Underwood during a fight over a girl. He damaged the retina with a large ring he was wearing and after that David spent 8 months in Hospital and his eye sight became permantently impaired. Though I think he can still see through both eyes just not as well (Loyal queen 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)).

Overview

Pardon me, but the overview appears to have been expanded back to its original form when it was still in a seperate "overview" column. I don't mean to be picky, but I think that the original overview was too long to be a standalone summary of David Bowie's career for a Wikipedia header; why not compare it to the Elvis Presley article, or Queen, or The Beatles. These musical acts certainly have much to be said about them, but not in the introduction to the article. The introduction should be much more concise, hence the earlier editing.

Also, the removal of the comment on David Bowie as a "rock chameleon" is unnacceptable. Stating that it is unusable due to status of a "cliché" is absurd; it is a comment which, like it or not, has been applied to Bowie historically enough times to be not only significant, but crucial to an understanding of him altogether.

Remember, this is about creating an informative artical which meets Wikipedia's standards, which is precisely why I haven't simply reverted the edits myself and would like to discuss this. Mikeguy 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike, as you've probably gathered from my tweaks but not wholesale rewrite of your recent change to the intro, I'm with you there. The rules for a featured article, if I recall rightly, are three paras in the intro. Also I have serious concerns with some of the purple prose in the latest version which I think were also there before your rejig ("extraordinary", "cleverly", etc). However, agree we wait a little to get other feedback/consensus here before any reversion. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bowie does not have an artificial eye...

 According to many sources it is believed that the eye inccident occured in his high school  years. Most sources say that he was struck in the eye by a friend in a schoolyard fight, over a girl. Some sources say that he has faulty-depth perception in his right eye. Some say that it was a different type of diagnosis, but this reason is most understandable to my knowledge.

Loyal_Queen No, Bowie's eye is definately not artificial yes thats right him and George Underwood had a fight over a girl in highschool and George was wearing a large ring , so when he punched david it left a large damage to the retina and he had to stay in hospital for months.

Bowie Fan

I thought George Underwood had conceded he had poked David in the eye with a jab over a girl of course??? And there is video with him making this admission...

As for the Chameleon thing I'm tired of it, afterall a chameleon blends in so it doesn't do justice to one who is outside of the conventional box.

I thought it was because he could lick his own eyeball. God, shows what I know.--172.166.19.129 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Toy was heard in 2006 by a select group and is described song by song online on a fan site however it is not released to us mere mortals yet ditto for Contamination and the list of unreleased material is staggering having said that unreleased material does not belong in a list of "official releases" aka known as a "discography"

Huge Bowie Fan

Problems

1. The introduction is WAY too long. It also includes blatantly POV and weasely worded statements:-
He is universally recognised as one of the more accomplished and inspired artists in rock and pop.
The relatively short-lived Ziggy persona would epitomise an extraordinary career defined by consistent musical innovation, reinvention and striking visual presentation.
A darling of the music cognoscenti while entertaining an intense and broad fan base, the knowing, indulgent and rather camp Bowie injected rock and pop with a combined glamour, mystique and melancholia uniquely his own.

I think all of these statements are unneccesary.

2. Somebody removed the long list of musical genres and replaced them with rock. Is it just vandalism, or was it agreed upon?

Currently it says "Rock, Art Rock, Glam Rock and Pop". These are pretty loose catch terms, and ultimately would involve putting "Young Americans" and "Outside" in the same box. There should certainly be Drum and Bass, New Wave, Soul and Electonica on there. But as it is an disputed area, I'll wait for a second opinion before doing anything. NadaPlissken 11:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reverting it back to the fine-tuned introduction I wrote after reviewing this blatant piece of POV, please view the above discussion about it. Mikeguy 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Bowie the Actor" Section

I recently noticed that an edit had been made to add Bowie's career as an actor to each section of his biography... I believe this is a better idea than using a seperate "Bowie the Actor" section, but if so, all the information from that section needs to be dispersed and rearranged through the article. Can we agree that this section should be dispersed into the rest of the biography?Mikeguy 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oz Actor

He's listed as an "Oz Actor", but his IMDB page doesn't mention anything Oz related. Am I missing something?--Agent Aquamarine 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Oz was in Labyrinth????--Philbarker 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

England?

Country: England doesn't seem quite right, since England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom; surely United Kingdom would be more accurate. Especially since England would not coincide with the List of countries.

Cannot do. Everyone born in England will be called British and everyone born in Wales will be called Welsh etc and it'll make too much inconsistency - because you'll never get the petty nationalists elsewhere in the UK to conform. Try it and see... -- 86.17.211.191 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Poof? bisexual?

is he really one?!!!

it has been stated over and over publically a million times. i dont think its been mentioned in recent years tho. AlexOvShaolin 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I gathered information that a guy called Calvin Mark Lee(however its slept) was having an affair with Angie and David at the same time (before they became lovers). So yehh we all know David was having sexual relationships with men as well as women. He was experimenting with his sexuality just like he does with drugs and eastern philosophy. Oh and I found out that when Angie and David got married in March 70' that the night before their wedding they celebrated with a threesome....But it doesnt mean he's gay or bisexual, I personally dnt think hes bisexaul just experimental (then in 70's) people can do things like this when they're....high on drugs maybe lol. (Loyal queen 04:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

This is really a celebrity anagram note, so it probably doesn't belong here, but since David Bowie's name anagram turns out to have reference to this topic, which has already been started, I am including it here. If anyone wants to include it in the article proper, be my guest! "DAVID BOWIE" = "odd view ... a bi". I personally just think of him as David Bowie - he is unique! ... I saw him through binoculars from the front (and so very close to the stage) at one of his concerts in Sydney in 1978, perfect skin, very beautiful inside and outside ... he smiled at me! It is Eros that matters! Eros!

For other celebrity anagrams: See the George Lucas discussion page (inc. Oliver Reed, George Romero, George Lucas, Luke Skywalker).--Elizabeth Jane 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised by the unsourced and unqualified assertion, "Bowie has since retracted and distanced himself from the claim he made in an interview to being bisexual." There is no indication which interview but I am guessing maybe the 1976 Playboy interview referenced on IMDB.com, http://imdb.com/name/nm0000309/bio. In a 2002 interview for Blender, he elaborated that he had "no problem with people knowing [he] was bisexual," but it had become too much of a headline in America because "America is a very puritanical place and I think it stood in the way of so much I wanted to do." http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=366 Regarding the specific events described above, it's a status vs. conduct issue; even a virgin has a sexual orientation. It shouldn't matter any more than the explanation for why his eyes appear to be two different colors, so ordinarily I would simply correct what seems to be an error, but somehow this particular subject gets people overexcited (especially in America, as noted in the interview; see also the Talk section on Anderson Cooper's Wikipedia bio), so I'll wait and see if anyone has any comments. TVC 15 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've removed the sentence quoted above from the glam period section (1969-1973) and replaced it with a short paragraph in the Personal Life section. It fits quite well there, following his reported explanation for how he met his first wife. I think the basis for the "retracted and distanced" comment may have been a 1983 article in Rolling Stone, so I've referenced that in the new paragraph together with the prior Playboy and subsequent Blender interviews. BTW, being American myself, and living here (as he does), I don't read or intend the "puritanical" comment as anti-American generally, only an observation that puritanism is a strong and sometimes distracting influence here. TVC 15 04:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, mate. I think you've covered the subject as well as anyone can. David Buckley references the 1983 RS interview and interprets it as one of Bowie's attempts around that time to "in" himself with the public, particularly in America. This was after all the Let's Dance period, his most overt play for mainstream commercial acceptance. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re; Nirvana comment

Whichever arsehole put in that pointless, snotty aside about Kurt Cobain fouling up the lyrics to The Man Who Sold The World clearly isn't a musician. If you're playing live mistakes happen and you have to keep going it's not a fucking studio recording is it? It's a one shot live performance not some jerk miming on TOTP.

You're right about the small lyrical change not being a big deal, artists do that all the time during live performances. However, you're still a twat for liking Nirvana.

Hey hey hey! Lets not get all critical with people's musical preferances. But however people who don't like Bowie or say hes a fag or gay...they seriously need mental help I mean to be ranked as the top 10 BEST ARTIST of ALL time and selling over 150 million records...must tell you something lol. (Loyal queen 05:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

U.S.-Sales?

How many records did Bowie sell in the U.S.? Especially since the beginning of the Nielsen Soundscan era.

Template

I'm surprised that there isn't a David Bowie template. There are enough studio albums, live albums, films etc.. to warrant one. Any comments? TommyStardust 09:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, just finished making one. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. TommyStardust 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hullo Tommy, good on you. Unfortunately whatever template you've used doesn't show up when I view it on Mozilla or IE. Don't have that prob with most templates, e.g. Beatles, Roxy Music, Rolling Stones or Grace Jones so I'm curious as to what you based the Bowie one on. If you don't feel like redoing it with one of them I'm happy to... Also be good for it to be 'David Bowie', not 'David bowie' (pedantic git, aren't I?). Cheers, Ian Rose 12:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Random lyrics

Article should mention that Bowie has (apparently) often used randomized lyrics; one songwriting technique he has used is to write out some individual lines he likes, and then randomize their order. He has said that after having used paper and ink for this, someone wrote him a Macintosh program that lets him type them in and then randomize them. It's an interesting window into his work, IMO, if anyone can find a reputable source. Tempshill 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know there is a video showing the composition process. Could it serve as a source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIC-1IXnmnA Najja 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, I think he also explains the paper and ink method in the Cracked Actor documentary. Nadim Scolris 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

lyrics

i noticed there is an article for a ton of david bowie songs but no lyrics, is it possible to include the lyrics in the articles or is that against wiki policy? AlexOvShaolin 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

G'day, Alex, sorry no-one's replied to you till now. Generally lyrics will be copyright so including them in a Wikipedia article will be a violation of that copyright (see WP:COPYVIO). Even providing an external link to lyrics elsewhere on the web is questionable as those sites may themselves be violating copyright. That said, normal fair use rationales apply if you were to quote a line or two to illustrate a point in the song for its article, just as you might fairly quote a short passage from a book in an essay or review (see WP:FAIR). Cheers, Ian Rose 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro Evolution Soccer 6

someone thought it would be a good idea to explain why this game uses the song as its theme in its own section, the information was relocated to the article Under Pressure. --AlexOvShaolin 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actual name

It says on IMdB that his birthday name is David Robert Hayward-Jones, rather than Jones. Does anyone know anything about this?

I was wondering about that myself. On the DVD for Labyrinth, under Talent Files for David Bowie, it also lists his real name as being David Robert Hayward-Jones. Seems like a reliable enough source on the matter. Zurgiea 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that probably explains it... Someone watches Labyrinth and updates IMDB based on that. IMDB doesn't require citations so is hardly a reliable source, and the DVD is plain wrong. If you read a biography like David Buckley's Strange Fascination you'll see his birth name is David Robert Jones. His father was Haywood Jones, which might account for the confusion... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks for the clarification. Zurgiea 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Angie and Duncan says his full name is Duncan Zowie Heywood Jones, which may be where some confusion arose. -- Beardo 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood and why there won't be a "Sir David" too soon...

I have a reliable source (AP; quoted in forum) that he declined this officially in 2003: http://www.funbolt.com/forums/f14/david-bowie-says-no-sir-knighthood-45992/ -andy 80.129.114.9 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

David does not like Clinton?

According to the live acoustic sets he did in 1996/97, Bowie does not like the former US president too much ... There is a song "I can't read", and in the beginning he says: "This was a song that was partially written by President Clinton; it is about literacy." Sounds very sarcastic to my ears, YMMV. Would be nice to know what exactly DB dislikes on him, resp. what he's criticizing about his politics. -andy 80.129.114.9 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, not very relevant. --AlexOvShaolin 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

social origins

Anyone know what his parents did for a living ? Johncmullen1960 09:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

his father worked at a mortuary and his mother was a prostitute. --AlexOvShaolin 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

David Bowie's father was did Public Relations for Dr Barnardo's Children's homes, and his mother was a house wife. Before she married Bowie's father she was a cinema usher.

Pronunciation?

Does anyone have a reliable source (ie sourced to Bowie himself) for the pronunciation of his name? 130.225.26.145 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The BBC 60 article referenced says that it rhymes with Joey. (So Zowie = Zoe ?). -- Beardo 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bowieart

The article needs something about his interest in art. He paints pictures, including self portraits, he has set up the foundation Bowieart[1] and he collects work (as I recall), as well as interviewing Tracey Emin. Tyrenius 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree!Did he do that drawing that's up now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.179.107 (talk • contribs).

It was done by A.Homicz. Click the image and get the page with details. 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also known as

Also known as "The Dame". The Dame is not something David Bowie is known as by his fans or most media publications. It's purely a stupid playful nickname by a UK magazine called, Q Music Magzine.

Worldwide David Bowie is also known as just Bowie, or Ziggy Stardust and The Thin White Duke. And to a lesser extent he's also known as Aladdin Sane and Halloween Jack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

To the best of my knowledge Bowie was never referred to as the Halloween Jack and he certainly never meant it to be an alter ego in a similar way as Ziggy Stardust or Thin White Duke were (the same could also be said for Aladdin Sane). "The Dame" should probably also be there, as well as plain "Bowie" as he did drop the David part from his stage name for a while in 1973-1974 (notice that both PinUps and Diamond Dogs have only the name "Bowie" in the cover, with no sign of "David").

While I'm at it, should the list also include all the name variants he used (and published music under) before settling on David Bowie? Or at the very least the Early years part of the biography should mention he used the names "Dave Jay", "Davie Jones" and "Davy Jones" (yes, exactly identical to The Monkees guy) before choosing "David Bowie" in late 1966. -- Kjet 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay... The three there at the moment - Ziggy, Aladdin and The Duke - should all stay. True, Aladdin Sane was essentially an alter ego of an alter ego (i.e. Ziggy) but was well-known enough at the time to qualify with the rest. Agree Halloween Jack is too esoteric and short-lived to be included. Agree The Dame should be there - doesn't matter where/how it originated, it's a relatively well-known epithet used by various biographers, among others. 'Bowie' is a bit obvious and not really one to bother with, even if he did use it on two albums - most major artists are 'also known as' their surname alone, e.g. 'Jagger', 'Hendrix', etc. For his early names, also agree the Early Years section is probably the best place for Davie Jones (with the King Bees) and Davy Jones (and the Lower Third). Dave Jay is another esoteric one, don't think I'd bother with it... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of that drawing

Get rid of that drawing of David Bowie and add a photo of him. I don't see any other actor or musican with a stupid drawing of them on there page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Scarr (talk • contribs).

I agreeSonic Hog 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, it doesn't look right. Samhalverson 13.17, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Lyrics

Anyone know any good links to lyrical analysis for Bowie?

--1000Faces 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image appears to be copyrighted

The main image; David_Bowie_Portrait.jpg, is a (computer) tracing of a common promo image (e.g. here). Will someone look into this and/or post a Possible Copyright Infringement thingie? Tlsg 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Acting Career

Towards the end, this section states:

"Bowie has voice-acted in the new movie Arthur and the Minimoys (or Arthur And The Invisibles in the US); his role in the film is the villain, Maltazard."

The film was titled Arthur and the Invisibles (note capitalisation too - [excuse english bias in spelling ;)]) in all English-speaking releases, according to the page on the film. Could this be changed to relect this (and tidy up the film's title)? Sir Pepperban 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

David Bowie Comic Tie-In?

I remember owning a comic wich featured a character like David Bowie, named "Nathan (something) and the art-ritual murder of (someone) or something like that. Does anyoen know what I'm talking about? I was looking for info on that... Vicco Lizcano 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Foudn it, it's further explained in the article for the album Outside. Vicco Lizcano 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Nazi and different eyes

My friend told me that he was a Nazi and he said that Hitler was a great man. He also told me that the reason for his different colours in his eye is because of a fight he got into when he was teen. Are those thing true or rumors that he heared?--69.113.131.124 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Both topics are covered in the article if you had bothered looking. Nadim Scolris 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Are all these "cultural references" really necessary? I mean, people... come on... is the fact that he was mentioned 2 of 3 times in the WB's prestigious show 'Gilmore Girls' really encyclopedia-worthy? He's a super mega-star, he's probably randomly and adorely mentioned a dozen times a day in the meida somewhere at some point. With someone so well known, shouldn't we be more discriminant as to what a cultural reference is? 71.229.26.210 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think that show is even canceled now... I don't see how half of those are cultural references. 128.186.240.237 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks

Hi. Whilst performing an edit, I noticed that (UK) commas (,) and (UK) full stops (.) were being incorrectly placed inside quotation marks when highlighting references to songs during breaks in a sentence, and at the end of a sentence e.g. "Station to Station." should be "Station to Station". Likewise with the commas. The only time commas and full stops should occur inside is during a complete quotation of speech, e.g.:

Then he said: "Correct the punctuation please."

I have corrected those I could find, and mention it here due to this being a B-class Biography deserving of respect. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit/citations/references

Hi all, just giving notice that over the next week (or weeks!) I'll be going through each section copyediting and adding/standardising citations. I'll do one at a time to avoid overwhelming anyone (including myself). No strict order but as the mood takes me - the first will be 1969 to 1973: Psychedelic folk to glam rock, with minor touches in one or two others. If anyone wants to discuss the citation/referencing style - or anything else - then please feel free to do so here.

While on the subject, I think all of us contributing to this article ought also to be mindful of its size and be prepared to reduce in some areas where the info is covered elsewhere, e.g. album and song articles. Just to name one, I fully agree with an editor above that the References in popular culture section is over the top - apart from eliminating items mentioned in related Bowie articles, we might consider breaking it all out into a new article or discuss some stricter criteria for inclusion. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Photo

Any chance of a more up-to-date and flattering photo than of David during the Glass Spider tour? The mullet is shocking! No seriously, though, is there not something more recent that could be used? It just seems somewhat arbitrary a choice. 195.157.52.65 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear a little odd to have a photograph from the most maligned and insignificant period in his musical career as the main image. Surely something more suitable is availabe - perhaps it could be replaced by the Haloween Jack photo, leaving the Glass Spider shot to be intergrated into the main body of the article. 81.159.131.78 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Halloween Jack would make a more appropriate photo. Glass Spiders is probably an era Bowie would like to forget and hardly represents his career.--98percenthuman 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree. Although the Glass Spider era is probably something Bowie would rather forget, his image at the time was much more "basic Bowie" (excepting the mullet) than the 1973 picture is. It would be ideal of course if we had more pictures to choose from, but as we currently only have the 1973 and 1987 pics, in my opinion we should go for the latter as a picture better representing Bowie's entire career, sinetad of the 1973 picture which only associates with one very short (albeit very well known) period of his career. -- Kjet 08:59, 30 July 2007

(UTC)

Halloween Jack

Why is there controversy over the Halloween Jack citation? Halloween Jack was the character Bowie came out as when he premiered "Rebel Rebel" for Diamond Dogs. Here is a link to a reprinted 1973 article in College Humor. Sorry its so cheesy, but its what I could ind online in short notice. [2]. Any Bowie biography though will include info on Halloween Jack (his "pirate" persona that was replaced by the "plastic soul" thing for the tour.)--98percenthuman 03:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - the eyepatch is the proof that he is potraying "Halloween Jack"--98percenthuman 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if Kjet's and my interest in only including what's clear and/or verified is causing you issue but it's not like Halloween Jack was a significant persona for Bowie on the scale of Ziggy, Aladdin Sane or The Duke and that everything to do with the album or tour was based around him - as has been discussed and agreed earlier re. the Aliases part of the infobox. "Any Bowie biography" won't in fact equate the pirate look for the "Rebel" film clip with Jack - I don't see anywhere in Buckley's Strange Fascination or in Carr and Murray's Illustrated Record that does. Perhaps Nicholas Pegg asserts that, I don't have a copy on me, but I'd be looking to those rather than a solitary article in College Humor. If there's doubt, we should err on the side of conservatism here - the current caption for the picture isn't in question and can easily suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly isn't causing me "issue" but I disagree that "Halloween Jack" was not a significant persona. Even though he was cut from the tour - the Diamond Dogs album feaures him prominently. I just think its uninformative to use a picture of Bowie with patch and not give an explanation for the patch. If I didn't know much about Bowie, I would ask myself, upon going to the article, "Why is Ziggy Stardust wearing an eye patch?" and the article wouldn't tell me. I say - either change the picture or include information about it in the caption. About the references, Halloween Jack is a recognized persona in the Bowie cannon. I cannot imagine that you can't find any information on it. Even look at Angie Bowie's book. She talks about it. --98percenthuman 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (I'm writing from work and don't have my books with me) Bowie was wearing an eyepatch on the Rebel Rebel clip due to an eye infection. Additionally I'm 99% certain Nicholas Pegg's books doesn't equate the pirate look with Halloween Jack, and indeed I have to point out there's no mention of him wearing an eyepatch in on the album. Besides, Halloween Jack is only featured on one track in the Diamond Dogs album (admittedly it's the title track). He certainly has no relevance to the tracks inspired by Orwell's 1984 that made up the majority of the album. I'd put the College Humor article down as an attempt to brand the pirate look as yet another Bowie persona when it in fact wasn't one. Also, Angie Bowie's book is one of the most untrustworthy books about Bowie there is, whereas Strange Fascination, An Illustrated Record and Pegg's The Complete David Bowie are considered the most trustworthy Bowie books.

Outside

I was looking for David Bowie videos on YouTube and I found this: [3] . In the description, the poster says something about an "Outside" movie... Anyone have a little more informations please? I'd really like to see it but couldn't find any infos anywhere on the internet :s

Thanks.

The word "Nazi" is not mentioned once in this article

You guys have 1 week or that's it, I'll add a seperate section myself talking about it under the "controversy" section. Duff man2007 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a Controversy section last time I looked but you're welcome to add something if you choose, proved it's balanced and sourced and you're prepared to have it 'mercilessly edited' by others in the best WP tradition. That's likely to get you a bit further than any supposed threats... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? In that case I'll add a Controversy section myself. It's notable as well, since he made some sort of racist comment, along with Eric Clapton. And if it's in Clapton's article then sure it will be in this one, right? Duff man2007 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't ever publicly made racist comments. However he did make some pro-fascist statements around 1976 (not related in any way to what Clapton said), stating his admiration to the fascist political system and Hitler as a persona, not to the fascist racial ideology. -- Kjet 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Kjet. I don't think the fascist comments alone justify a Controversy section per se, just a mention in the 1974-76 section around Station to Station. Curiously, that section used to include a mention of Victoria Station (I know because I added to and sourced some of it) but now I look again it's disappeared. I must've blinked... Cheers, Ian Rose 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate David Bowie biography article?

The article is terribly big as it is, and there is a lot of stuff that should probably be added to the biography section (case point: the "Nazi" discussion above), so I was wondering if it would be a good idea to separate the biography into a separate article of it's own? -- Kjet 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Take your point, mate, but I think we should trim other parts rather than create a new biography article. After all, the point of the article is a biography I think. For instance, let's get rid of - or radically trim, or break out into a separate article - the Popular Culture section, which is getting beyond a joke. Also, we could trim some of the album and single info in the body, since we have pretty comprehensive articles on most of his music (what I've spent a large chunk of my WP time on). Case in point is Station to Station, which I recently developed into a full article, including a discussion of the 'fascist' statements and the Victoria Station incident as part of the Aftermath section... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)