David Bowie's 'The Next Day': Above criticism

Dull, too long, a shadow of past works. 3/10

That's my review in a nutshell.

What I'm really interested in writing about is the way in which the music press is rushing to heap mounds of praise on to this mediocre album.

Check out the metacritic page for the record and you will see what I mean. The two reviews I most identify with, at Exclaim and PopMatters, raise a couple of good points.

In the Exclaim piece, here's the money line:

The Next Day is a good latter-day Bowie record, worthy of at least a few listens, but since it's so evocative of his earlier, better work there's little reason not to put on Scary Monsters or Heroes instead. At the very least, it'll save you from The Next Day's lyrics.

Nailed it. So true. I have this conversation with friends all the time. If an artist's new record makes you want to go back and listen to their previous work, it's probably not a good record.

The PopMatters piece is interesting because the score, 5/10, doesn't match the scathing criticism dished out by the reviewer. Unlike the writer, I'm a huge Bowie fan, yet I can accept some of the points he's making. The commenters, however shit all over the guy because of some imaginary 'bias' against Bowie, as if the former Thin White Duke is somehow above negative criticism now.

When the single and album cover were first released, I was astonished that the first offerings seemingly conjured out of the ether could be so poor. "The Stars (Are Out Tonight)" is a decent enough single, and it would slide nicely into the first half of Reality. The rest of the cuts are generic and frankly boring, not to mention the appallingly stupid cover art.

My guess is that if this album were released in 2004 as a follow-up to Reality, the praise might not be so universal, as most of the rock-crit world would not be lining up to pay what they perceive to be their last respects to Mr. Bowie.