# Talk:Blackstar (album)

This is not a jazz album and David Bowie was never a jazz musician. That you can find sources that say otherwise is a poor reflection on those sources and on those who chose to use them. You can also find sources that say the world is flat. That doesn't mean that I would use them. Blackstar is neither avant-garde jazz nor jazz of any kind. I have not heard of the genre "experimental jazz". It must be a recent vintage. To some degree all jazz is experimental. I have made this point before: Just because an album "incorporates jazz" or was "influenced by jazz" doesn't make it a jazz album. It's not just misleading. It's wrong. Queen made an album called Jazz that has nothing to do with it. So let's not be mesmerized by words. On the plus side, whoever decided to clarify this album jazz has given real jazz fans and critics a good laugh. Unfortunately, this has come at the expense of Wikipedia's sagging credibility.–Vmavanti (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If an album utilizes jazz musical elements performed by jazz musicians, then jazz should be listed under one of its genres. Just because you've never heard of a genre like "experimental jazz" (which isn't even used in this article) doesn't mean that it is an illegitimate means of describing the music. This whole point seems like a straw man anyway. No one is calling Blackstar a "jazz album." The phrase "jazz album" isn't used in the article or (from what I could find) any of the cited sources that discuss the album's jazz influences. All that's stated by the article is that the album has jazz influences, incorporates jazz elements, and utilizes jazz musicians, all of which are supported by numerous citations. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
What QP said. Repeat the same arguement (actually, don't) for industrial rock on Earthling. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
If it isn't a jazz album, then the word "jazz" should be removed from the infobox as a genre.Vmavanti (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The assertion is that the genre field in the infobox should be used differently from how it used on every other page. The assertion is that the genre field includes an album's "influences" in addition to the simple classification of the album. The claim isn't used logically or consistently, because if the infobox really were the place for "influences" you would have many more genres listed, not just here but in every infobox in Wikipedia. The AllMusic review of Blackstar doesn't even mention the word "jazz". When a person says the album contains "jazz elements" what does that mean? That there is a saxophone on it? That doesn't make it jazz. That Donny McCaslin plays on it? That doesn't make it jazz. That it's weird? That doesn't make it jazz. That it has long songs? That doesn't make it jazz. That it combines genres? That doesn't make it jazz. I would like to hear particulars about these alleged "elements of jazz" that are "all over" the album.
JazzTimes wrote "But if it implied that Bowie’s 25th studio album would take a markedly jazzy turn, then jazz fans were sold a bill of goods. That period may have begun and ended with 'Sue (Or in a Season of Crime)', his seven-minute-plus 2014 single with the Maria Schneider Orchestra (on which McCaslin took an extended solo). 'Sue' reappears on Blackstar in another version, cut to less than five minutes and stripped of the sonorities and delicate harmonies for the sake of aggressive guitar and drum lines—if anything, it compares to Bowie’s 1995 industrial project, Outside...This version of “Sue” signifies the rule on Blackstar, not the exception...Only “‘Tis a Pity” and “I Can’t Give Everything Away” touch on jazz in any meaningful or discernible sense"
If it isn't a jazz album, then the word "jazz" should be removed from the infobox as a genre
Readers can judge by their own ears. Here are two video clips from the album. Who thinks these clips are jazz and why? Lazarus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JqH1M4Ya8 Blackstar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kszLwBaC4SwVmavanti (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The album is influenced by jazz themes and could be characterised as jazz rock. I think that it would be a fair inclusion on the infobox. 'Jazz' on its own: perhaps not. I'll wait a while but given the debate from other Wikipedians I'll amend the infobox within a week if there isn't dissent. · | (talk - contributions) 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I consider the album to have jazz elements, or influences, but it is neither a “jazz” album nor a “jazz rock” album, as these descriptors are commonly applied. Improvised saxophone solos from jazz musicians, for example, can be found on hundreds of rock albums. I think it’s appropriate for the article to refer to jazz elements, jazz musicians, etc., but not appropriate as a genre in the infobox. Design (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The prose mentions jazz a few times, so I've added this article to WikiProject Jazz above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't put Jazzercise in the jazz project. Or All That Jazz. Or Jazz by Queen. Or the Utah Jazz. You get the point, right? Vmavanti (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti, Uh, you're saying there's not enough jazz to justify associating this project with WikiProject Jazz? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Correct. Why do you call an album a project? When I was a kid, I had a project in the local science fair.Vmavanti (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti, Oops, sorry I did mean "article" above (was thinking ahead re: 'WikiProject'). Well, I don't feel strongly about whether or not this article is part of WikiProject Jazz. Bigger things to worry about, and that seems like something WikiProject editors can decide. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Good. How many Wikiproject Jazz editors do you think there are?Vmavanti (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, it isn't the jazz fans who are the obstacle. It's the Bowie fans who want to believe Bowie was a jazz musician. Why? Fan is short for fanatic. Jazz has somehow taken on an elevated, religious quality. It's neither elevated nor religious. But that's the perception. I've been through this regarding other pop stars and musicians from outside the genre, people who have dabbled in jazz, usually soon before they die. Soon after they die their reputation is inflated. They magically become jazz musicians. Of course, it happens while they're still alive, too. Linda Ronstadt, Dionne Warwick, Sade, Van Morrison, Ginger Baker, Frank Zappa, Chaka Khan, Amy Winehouse. I would mention more, but I'm afraid the villagers would come by with the torches.Vmavanti (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti First of all, Bowie was not a jazz musician, and I'm positive User:Another Believer was not saying that. The only times Bowie experimented with jazz was Blackstar and debatably Black Tie White Noise. From researching, I have found some critics to label him as a jazz musician for this album only, which everyone who made it has stated is just not true. Pegg writes: "The credentials of his new ensemble piqued the interest of critics, some of whom, in their attempts to slot Bowie's music into an easy pigeonhole – never a wise move – would end up peddling the notion that Blackstar was Bowie's "jazz album". Aficionados of jazz understandably found this assertion ridiculous, as did the band themselves." I'm not gonna post the whole paragraph but you get the jist. Bowie was clearly never a jazz musician. Saying his a jazz musician is basically like saying he's a DJ. Second of all, since you're such an expert on jazz, go ahead and remove WP Jazz, but if you could cool it with the passive-aggressiveness that would be greatly appreciated. – zmbro (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't read my post very carefully. You read the white space between the lines rather than the black letters. How do I know? Because you claim I said things I didn't. Yet you saw them. Where? I never said AnotherBeliever believed Bowie was a jazz musician. I said an obstacle would be Bowie fans who believe Bowie was a jazz musician. Second, I never said Bowie was a jazz musician. Show me where I said either. Calling me passive-aggressive is an insult and against the rules of WP, but I'm not going to report you to an admin to have you blocked. Your welcome. I don't think you are using the term passive aggressive correctly. And thank you for informing me of what's cool and what isn't. Being cool is so important to me. I'm not sure what the problem is. Does it bother you that we agree Bowie wasn't a jazz musician? I never said he was, right? Got it? OK? Does that make it all better?Vmavanti (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti Yes. I guess I misinterpreted the situation. I'm sorry. – zmbro (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no harm done.Vmavanti (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Thanks for your recent edits. I'm curious, do you have Good article nomination on your radar? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer Thank you! I think Blackstar could easily become a GA, but it still needs some work. I think I could expand the composition section using Pegg 2016, as I know he gives great insight on the songs themselves. I'm thinking I could make a good para on each track ala my additions to Hunky Dory and Aladdin Sane but I'm not sure yet. The release and commercial performance section need some flow additions and I'd like to find more reviews of the album that were written after Bowie died, as most on the page were published before 10 Jan 2016. The other sections should be good, although I know I could add a ref or two for the release history section. Overall, I'd say the whole thing is 80% done. I'll probably work on it this weekend, or another Bowie album, haven't decided yet. – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
zmbro, I've just had a quick look over, and if I was doing a GA review I'd have a couple of minor quibbles regarding cites (which I think are already somewhere in the article) being placed on statements that come under GA criteria 2b, and the use of the Visconti image under relevance and quality, though would likely reluctantly accept an argument that image quality is not a GA requirement, and more warmly accept an argument that the image is relevant. I've had a closer look at the two sections you are concerned about, and I feel they meet the prose and content requirements of GA in that the prose is clear, concise and understandable, and the content is on topic and not excessive. Simply using reception reviews for a four year old album are perfectly acceptable as most readers would not be looking for legacy reviews this soon. So, I agree with Another Believer that the article is pretty much good to go. I'll see if I can find some cites to drop in those places where I feel the extra reassurance is needed, and if I can't find them, I'll just tag them so you can see where the concerns are. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
"to top the Billboard 200 in the United States" - do we need "Billboard 200" and "the United States" , particularly in the lead? Mostly that sort of statement would be "tops Billboard chart" or "number one in the US" rather than both as Billboard is the American chart, so it's like saying "to top the US chart in the US". SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I've done or tagged the statements that concerned me. Good luck with the GA when you do it! SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork Thanks for your help but I personally still don't think it's ready yet. I also don't think the refs regarding commercial performance need to be in the lead (the only one that should really be there is the ref confirming the album's title is the actual star). I'll continue working on it today. – zmbro (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
zmbro, thanks for pinging me with your disagreement. I think you are aware that challengeable and/or controversial statements require citations per MOS:LEADCITE, WP:WHENNOTCITE and WP:VER ("any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations"), but I understand that you feel the statements I cited in the lead were everyday, uncontroversial statements. I have tagged some statements in the lead that I feel are questionable, such as "the fifth best selling album of the year, worldwide", and "Blackstar has been named as one of Bowie's greatest albums by multiple publications". Statements such as these are normally cited because extraordinary "greatest" or "best selling" claims are conventionally the sort of claims that are questioned and challenged. Also, as I have challenged the statements, they now technically fall in to the verifiability summary of "any material challenged", though that's an odd technicality as most (all?) of the material is cited within the body of the article if someone is prepared to go look for it). Anyway, we are now in a position where you can either cite those statements (I am unwilling to do the work again as you undid my previous efforts - and I hope you understand my reluctance), or you can dispute the need for them, and we can attempt to resolve it here, and failing to find an agreement we can open a wider discussion. Let me know which route you would prefer. SilkTork (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Per this consensus, best-of lists should be reduced to 10 publications. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice article, but it seems a little odd that there isn't a single image of the actual singer anywhere. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Because there's no free photos of him after 2004 and adding anything else wouldn't match the time frame. And thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Although since finishing The Next Day I've thought about coming back to this and making some changes. I'll think about it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care what the citation says but the cover artwork is more obviously saying 253,333 (count the points)
David Bowie in a rather known gematria cipher is 37, a star number whose mirror is the only star number in its sequence.  He was saying "I'm the star of David". Same as Aleister Crowley (59) changed his name from Edward to cipher the same as Jesus Christ (59)
Using the same cipher "Im a Blackstar" also comes to 37 ironically
37|73 (it's a star of David reverence...)  As_above,_so_below.
333 is the number of Choronzon (search 333) in Thelema...  the abyss dweller one faces when you die similar to ammit in Egyptian mythology.  it's the number of The_Book_of_Lies_(Crowley) by Aleister Crowley (Liber MMMCCCIII, 333)
The video for this song kind of confirms all of this if you pay attention.  Isis, Haddit, Nuit and all sorts of that kind of Thelema-based knowledge is obvious.
It's saying the star is dying.  253 is also a star number.
Bowie was heavily influenced by Aleister Crowley and was into Enochian Magic and all that stuff...  Sorry, you guys are kind of blind.
Bowie also died 3 days after his birthday (the 10th).  If you look at the 3 day resurrection concept of the solstice (death of the white star in sun god worship) and revolve that around his birthday you kind of hit rather close to his birthday then 8,9,10 (died on the 10th).  He probably committed suicide and actually didn't die of what is stated in the news.  As an artist he wouldn't have let his death be insignificant when he could project that image of the "Blackstar" dying in the reverse of the Solstice.
Boar69 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP is not about personal beliefs. Find a reliable source that supports these claims (but frankly you won't be able to because he died of cancer not by suicide). Also, it was 2 days after his birthday, not 3. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, it kind of an absurd to say he committed suicide.. even there's a lot of information about he telling friends he had cancer and would probably die. But some more close people say he was fighting against it till the last minute, so I don't think he even committed euthanasia. By the way, I think he would have said something about it in the album. 2804:665C:586:6000:EC4E:9653:160:4637 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of rewriting this article in my sandbox. It was one of the first Bowie articles I wrote and, with its 10th anniversary coming up next year, it deserves better in terms of depth and analysis. I'm wanting to bring it to FA to get it on the main page for the 10th anniversary (cannot believe it has already been that long – I still remember the 5th anniversary). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey all. I need some help with my rewrite over at my sandbox. A little background: This was Bowie's final album and was recorded after being diagnosed with liver cancer. He died two days after its release. With that being said, a lot of the lyrics on the album deal with death; on release, critics and fans did not really think anything of it. Then, after he died, the album was re-analyzed by critics and fans, with articles such as this one asking the question: did he predict his own death and saying goodbye to everyone on this album? According to the album's co-producer Tony Visconti, yes. Nevertheless, sources say that Bowie did not intend for Blackstar to be his final album.
In case you're unfamiliar with my expansions, I like to shape these articles so they have some sort of narrative flow. In my sandbox, I currently have the material separated (i.e. describing the lyrics at face value in the music and lyrics section, while having a separate section in "legacy" detailing the album's post-death analysis). When I expanded this and brought it to GA many years ago, I mishmashed a lot of the material so a lot of that appears together across the article. I'm at a bit of a crossroads here because this album and his death go so hand-in-hand; the former will always have the shadow of the latter over it. I would like to know others' opinions on how the material should be handled. Should the sections be separate to provide a better narrative flow or would it be better to combine them? As a reader, I feel it would be more shocking to learn that Bowie died two days after its release in the release section rather than earler, but maybe that's just me. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro Bowie (almost) always liked the ambiguity for the meaning of his work, he wanted that the interpretation of his songs were open to listeners. Hence, having in mind that we can't know if Tony Visconti or the other sources are the ones that are right, regarding whether this was or not intended as his last album, then I think the best approach here should be to not restrict the narrative or analysis of the album (mainly) to just one subject: Death. Thus, you should try to expand it to the whole other themes also present in this work (and perhaps through that, making it more appealing for different people). 190.162.102.132 (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Exactly what I'm thinking. Appreciate the input! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)