Talk:David Bowie

Request to Revise David Bowie's Discography Section

1. Change the placement of Toy from after Blackstar to between Hours… (1999) and Heathen (2002) to reflect its original intended release and artistic context.

2. Remove The Buddha of Suburbia from the "Discography" list.

3. Add The Buddha of Suburbia to the “Filmography / Soundtrack Work” section with a note: “Soundtrack Contribution: Contains used and unused tracks from the BBC television adaptation of Hanif Kureishi’s The Buddha of Suburbia (1993).”

!!!Reason!!!: I am proposing a revision to David Bowie’s discography section to more accurately reflect the historical and artistic context of his releases. Specifically, I would like to reposition Toy (originally intended for release in 2001 but posthumously released in 2021) between 'Hours…' (1999) and Heathen (2002), acknowledging its intended chronology and significance within Bowie's creative trajectory. Though its release was delayed due to label complications, Toy was completed and scheduled for release in 2001, making it an essential part of his studio work during that period rather than a posthumous curiosity.

Placing Toy after Blackstar (2016) distorts the narrative of Bowie’s discography. That placement gives the impression that Toy was a closing artistic statement, when in fact it belongs to a very different era in both sound and spirit. Frankly, it looks inconsistent and misleading to place Toy after Blackstar. If chronology is based purely on release date, then by that logic, No Plan (2017)—which was specifically released as a posthumous farewell and timed for Bowie’s 70th birthday—would also warrant inclusion. That EP, containing Blackstar-era tracks and the profoundly symbolic title song "No Plan," was arguably Bowie’s true goodbye. Toy, by contrast, was never conceived with that kind of finality or legacy framing. Its proper place is within the early 2000s creative arc, not at the very end of his discography.

Additionally, I propose removing The Buddha of Suburbia from the list of canonical studio albums and instead relocating it to the “Filmography / Soundtrack Work” section, with a note indicating that it contains both used and unused tracks from the BBC television adaptation of Hanif Kureishi’s The Buddha of Suburbia (1993). Although it is often cited as a studio album due to its hybrid musical style and substantial Bowie involvement, The Buddha of Suburbia was never formally declared as part of his main studio discography by Bowie himself, nor was it marketed as such by the Bowie estate.

Fans sometimes mistakenly include other works such as the Labyrinth soundtrack in his discography, which further illustrates the common confusion surrounding Bowie’s non-traditional releases. However, The Buddha of Suburbia clearly does not belong in the studio albums / discography section. In fact, both Tin Machine albums would technically fit better in this context given their status as proper band releases during Bowie’s career, but even these do not belong in the solo studio discography since Tin Machine was a distinct band project. Still, including Tin Machine albums would be a more logical and consistent choice than The Buddha of Suburbia.

While the album features reworked themes and original compositions inspired by the show, it was not directly utilized within the program beyond fragments, and its association with the TV series is more thematic than functional. In short, it is neither a formal studio album within his discography line nor a proper soundtrack, but rather a soundtrack contribution - a hybrid work tied loosely to a television adaptation that Bowie himself quickly moved on from. The album was largely overlooked in both critical and promotional contexts until much later.

This correction aims to resolve a frequent source of confusion among fans and researchers by better aligning the discography with Bowie’s own artistic narrative and the historical record of his releases. I would be happy to provide references, statements, and source material to support the proposed adjustments if necessary.

Thank you for considering this request.

Best regards. - by Sailor77200 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,  Not done. While I completely understand your reasonings, they are either (a) not correct or (b) not how Wikipedia operates.

1. The discography section for artists is typically ordered by release year. Yes, Toy was recorded in 2000, but it was not released until the 2020s, during which there were additional overdubs added to the final product. So, to place it there would be both against WP policy and inaccurate because additional changes were made after 2000. Recording chronology is also different from release chronology. It's why Smile is not in the discography section of the Beach Boys' article.

2. The Buddha of Suburbia is considered a studio album. The reason is given on that article's page. It is listed as such by biographers such as Nicholas Pegg and on websites such as radio times and Bowie's official website, where, interestingly enough, Toy doesn't appear. I've had arguments with other users before but here is why. Buddha started off as a soundtrack but became its own thing. Only one song one the album (in two versions) appears in the BBC serial, and the other 10 or so tracks appear nowhere else but on that album. Yes, Buddha was initially marketed as a soundtrack, but later authors, journalists, and Bowie's website have classified it as a studio album due to these circumstances. I personally think Tin Machine I & II should be included in the discography, but Wikipedia tends to treat band works and solo stuff as separate entities (i.e. Wings being separate from Paul McCartney's solo stuff on his discography. I would agree with you in that Bowie's estate has not made it clear about Buddha's status though. They basically ignored it in promotional material leading up to Brilliant Adventure (1992–2001), yet they included it as its own album in release order with the others, whereas they included the Labyrinth tracks in Re:Call 4 in Loving the Alien (1983–1988). Plus, Buddha sits with his discography on his website with the rest of the main albums, so that would make it an official addition with all his other albums. I hope this helps. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me! I really appreciate it

Well, could I perhaps request a little something to be added next to "Toy (posthumous release)" at least? Like; "Toy (posthumous release / intended for release in 2001)? The German page has "bereits 2000 aufgenommen, sollte ursprünglich 2001 erscheinen", so there's a little less confusion about which album truly is his last. I think it's a neat little addition. That'd be everything

A little rant about Buddha - well, a lot of people who are not the creator could say what they want (and whoever nicholas pegg in this issue is), but in the end considerations are not facts. It's a pity the album is being overshadowed by its properly promoted LPs, as for personally it is one of my favourite albums. However, as you've already said, the state for The Buddha of Suburbia (even after the release for Brilliant Adventure) is still on ice. Honestly, the estates had a chance to reintroduce The Buddha of Suburbia into the charts through a proper reissue campaign as part of the Brilliant Adventure box set, but they didn't. It was overshadowed once again by another (proper) studio album they focused on - Toy.

But you do you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

best regards Sailor77200 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! I mean, it's already labeled (posthumous, 2021) which I think is appropriate. I know there can be inconsistencies across different Wikipedias, but I'd be inclined to change it to something like that if others found it appropriate. I also added the two Tin Machine releases (which should have been there to begin with).

About Buddha, Nicholas Pegg is the author of The Complete David Bowie, an encyclopedia about the artist that Tony Visconti called the best Bowie book out there. I own it and it is entirely credible. I also positive that most artists, especially before 2000, described their specific albums as studio albums, rather that was the assumption when it came to advertising. Despite the Bowie estate's disregarding of Buddha, given that it's included with the other main albums in the discography section of his website, it is fair to say that it should be in the official count. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead intro

It would be useful to know what others think about this intro to the article. There has been a longstanding consensus to have it there, but one user in particular seems to want to "rework" it. Is this a good intro, or should it be changed? Thanks.

David Robert Jones (8 January 1947 – 10 January 2016), known as David Bowie,[a][1] was an English singer, songwriter and actor. Regarded as among the most influential musicians of the 20th century, Bowie received particular acclaim for his work in the 1970s. His career was marked by reinvention and visual presentation, and his music and stagecraft have had a great impact on popular music.

Rodericksilly (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the previous intro is clearly good and FA-quality and all, and I think it's plausible the changes could be further improvement? Not sure.

Regarding the plaudit, what sticks out to me is it's restricted to the 1970s. I get immediately that's what's most clearly DUE, but it also seems quite artificial in the lead, if that makes sense. Remsense 🌈 论 19:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Having indulged myself in Bowie so much in the past four years, I've thought a lot about how the lead could be improved. I understand where you're coming from. Bowie's influence never truly "ended" throughout his whole career, but it can easily be said that in the grand scheme of things, the 70s were undoubtedly his most influential decade. His 80s work, although his most commercially successful period, was also not as artistically daring as the decade prior, and throughout the 90s he was criticized for chasing trends rather than setting them. With that being said, it's why I've been fine with keeping the lead with how it is, although I can see how restricting his "acclaim" to the 70s can be viewed as limiting.

I personally think that Bowie warrants an article on his cultural impact, considering his influence ranged greatly outside of music, from his film career (where he was an undeniably great actor), to fashion, to the LGBTQ community. The reason I haven't started one is the sheer size and scope it would be and distractions with other projects. The lead (IMO) should be amended to reflect these things, although it's currently fine as a summary of the article's current contents. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David Bowie sig.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)