Low vs. "Heroes" got me thinking.

I greatly prefer side 2 of Low to side 1.

Gotta think on it. I find myself reaching for Eno way more often than Bowie.

I dunno.

Oh, and no one say Iggy Pop, or you're out.

I listen to Eno way more (up thru about the early '80s when it got a bit too new age-y for me). I'll never grow tired of the first 4 Eno albums, his Roxy Music contributions, Cluster/Harmonia collabs, early punk/new wave/no wave stuff he produced, etc.

enframed wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:10 am I greatly prefer side 2 of Low to side 1.

If that's the reference point then it's Bowie all the way for me.

Bowie bc It's Gonna Be Me. That's enough to edge most out.

Eno in a landslide. I think of Bowie as largely a charlatan, a chameleon who got it right a few times over the course of 40 years but not often enough to warrant his exalted position astride the rock rushmore of the pop culture zeitgeist omg this sentence sounds like I'm a fucking intern from buzzfeed

Eno. No vitriol for Bowie, but I never understood why he’s so idolized. If anything he’s proof that genius isn’t real. He was just the face of a few successful team efforts, and there’s a lot of crap, or at least filler on his classic albums.

A bit apples and oranges here. They had like a 15 minute overlap where they were both flamboyant rock stars...and another 15 minutes where they both played keyboards for another huge star. Otherwise neither could realistically do what the other does, and they both generated plenty of crap. I think it's harder to do what Bowie did, but certainly Eno is also a pillar in his own right.

I guess if I could never listen to any thing that one of them touched ever again, I would have to give the nod to Eno to survive. But not ever being able to put Ziggy Stardust or Hunky Dory on for the rest of my life would suuuuck.

Eno, for this alone:

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:07 am Eno, for this alone:

Any excuse.