# Talk:Diamond Dogs

Edited to add that first track quotes Rogers and HArt song. Acknowledged only on later issues (no doubt after copyright protests!)

Good call whoever you are, in fact I worked this into the "Future Legend" article but didn't retrofit it here for some reason. Rejigged your edit to better reflect how it appeared on the original album - it's actually later CD issues that ignore it I believe, not the other way round. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the original vinyl album is credited to "Bowie" rather than "David Bowie" - the name David isn't mentioned anywhere on the sleeve or label. Is this also the case for CD reissues? 217.155.20.163 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The CD reissue covers are the same as the original LP, which just says 'Bowie', but the spine of the Rykodisc and EMI reissues say 'David Bowie', as does the disc itself from Ryko (don't own the EMI remaster, can't say for sure there).
Never thought it particularly noteworthy myself but there it is... Cheers, Ian Rose 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a few things carried the "Bowie" designation in those days - maybe the Knock On Wood single, for example. Possibly a result of his meeting with up Charlie. BTLizard 13:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the one-word "Bowie" designation on the album is that Tony Defries had the idea of "re-branding" him with a single name, like Cher or Liberace. So it's consistently just "Bowie" on the album; in the TV ads for the album, etc. That idea didn't last long--just a few months later, with David Live, his first name was back in use. glenntwo (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am investigating the history of where David Bowie got the lyrics to this song in particular as so very many of the lines are exactly worded in S. Delaney's first book, Dhalgren, published in 1973 out of New York I believe. Also, Delaney, I have been told, took approximately 10 years to produce this book, making the wording within it much, much older than the lyrics written in Bowie's Sweet Thing. Should be interesting. Both, it seems, come from Theater of Cruelty and/or Theater of the Absurd genre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by QStick (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago the title track (Diamond Dogs) seemed to be thematically lifted almost entirely from Dhalgren though I don't know about the timeline myself. And have not read Dhalgren myself.--72.173.5.119 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Was this ever recorded without the 'live' background?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.44 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 

I suppose the 'live' background was an overdub on a standard studio-recorded song, but I'm not aware of a version without the crowd noises ever being released to the public (be interested to know for sure myself)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any version released to the public without an overdub, though you could search for bootlegs, I suppose. It's not part of the original recording, however. The applause transition between "Future Legend" and "Diamond Dogs" is an overdub from Jimi Hendrix's Live at the Isle of Wight album.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.248.159 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The crowd noise that bridges "Future Legend" and "Diamond Dogs" was actually borrowed from Rod Stewart; it comes from the recording of his live Faces album, "Coast to Coast."glenntwo (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Re: The crowd noise from the Rod Stewart album, you can also hear Stewart himself shouting "Hey!".  I don't know if this is mentioned in any other source but it's not mentioned here. SamXT (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Have subsequent re-releases of the album stripped the dog/man hybrid of it bikinis and allowed the genetalia???User:JCHeverly 20:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The image of Bowie had the original artwork, with genitalia, restored on the vinyl reissue/remaster in the 1990s, and as far as I know, all subsequent CD releases, in the UK, at least.
To the best of my knowledge, the background creatures have always worn bikinis.SamXT (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Diamond Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102221451/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107224423/http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323012051/http://www.hitsallertijden.nl/charts/swedish%20charts/SwedishCharts%200872-0875.pdf to http://www.hitsallertijden.nl/charts/swedish%20charts/SwedishCharts%200872-0875.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diamond Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027131238/http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1974.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1974.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In the writing and recording section, a song is mentioned called Take It In Right, and is mentioned as being a demo of the song 'Right' from Young Americans a year later. Listening to the song (forget about the citation), the song is OBVIOUSLY an early version of the song 'Can You Hear Me', also recorded later for Young Americans. I'd like to remove or correct this, but I hesitate to tamper with anything with a citation attached to it..Robbmonster (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robbmonster. Thanks for bring this to my attention. When I wrote that many months ago I neglected to see if that was right (pun-intended) so I just listened to the demo myself and you're right that is "Can You Hear Me". I checked Pegg and he verified it so it's now corrected. Thanks for catching that! – zmbro (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to help. Was hoping to avoid getting into the whole 'original research' debate ;)Robbmonster (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diamond Dogs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

These preparations could take a day or two to pull together for the entire article. Here are some opening items to look at:

In the lead section, the phrase "these projects form the theme of the album", might look better as "these projects form the theme of Diamond Dogs".
Done – zmbro (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Second paragraph of Background. Could the wording be adapted into something like "In spite of Desfies, Bowie bought the house." Something explicit to show that Bowie was making his own decisions.
Done – zmbro (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Writing and recording section. The point is made that Bowie could not get the '1984' copyright permissions and therefore decided to switch to William Bouroughs literary motifs. This is clarified somewhat later in this article about Bouroughs, though at the start of this section its not that clear. Just how did Bowie figure out that his best move artistically was to switch from an Orwellian mind set to the literary imagery of Bourroughs. Could a sentence or two be added here to clarify.
So after re-reading Pegg, this appears to be the story: Bowie had an interview with William Burroughs in November 1973 who he spoke to about where he was going next. He revealed (in order) that he was starting to use Burroughs' "cut-up technique" regarding lyrics, spoke of the planned Ziggy musical, then casually mentioned the 1984 adaptation. Apparently it's not known why Bowie wanted to adapt 1984 (other than he liked the novel). The Ziggy musical fell through, Sonia Orwell denied him the rights, then, annoyed that he was rejected (I mean who wouldn't be), he then decided to do the apocalyptic scenario of Hunger City and the Diamond Dogs concept. So essentially, because he couldn't adapt one dystopian world, he decided to make his own. Does that make sense? – zmbro (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
That actually makes good sense and the part about Bowie meeting Burroughs in November 1973 is very informative about why he would choose this direction after Orwell did not work out. Adding a sentence or two about the meeting with Burroughs makes good sense. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
How does that look? – zmbro (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks on target. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
In the themes section you give the album description as an '"English proto-punk" record, according to the cultural studies academic Jon Stratton, who calls it "post-glam".' You then give Shelton Waldrep and the music journalist C. M. Crockford as supporting this view. There is also a framed quote from Bowie you format with him mentioning Rotten and Vicious. The cites are useful though something more might help to explain how you get from the sound the "Diamond Dogs" single to the sound of something like "Anarchy in the UK", the two songs seem to follow very different musical concepts.
Going to be adding a bunch of stuff from punknews.org that should be able to connect the dots a little bit more. – zmbro (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
So Crockford mentions a bit about the album's influence on punk, but doesn't go into it at great lengths. Obviously, this album as a whole did not single-handedly create punk; it was a long process that took many years to fully develop. You have "proto-punk", that's considered to be an influence on the overall genre, but Bowie had dabbled with this before; parts of Ziggy and Aladdin are also considered to be "proto-punk". I personally don't think this album directly correlated to the Sex Pistols, although the themes of "Future Legend" and the title track I could see why some would think that. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like I'll be able to fully complete this request, as from what's available to me I just don't have the answers. I think there's a 33&1/3 book on DD but I don't have that (atm). What do you think should be done here? – zmbro (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The material in the framed quote box for Rotten and Vicious also should appear in the article somewhere with a least a little elaboration.
Don't think I'll be able to go into much detail about this. Pegg gives the quote but doesn't say when or where Bowie said it (obviously after 1980 but to know exactly when seems hard). Maybe I should remove the first part of the quote that mentions them? – zmbro (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the full quote from Pegg: "They were all little Johnny Rottens and Sid Viciouses really. And, in my mind, there was no means of transport... So there were these gangs of squeaking, roller-skating, vicious hoods, with Bowie knives and furs on, and they were all skinny because they hadn't eaten enough, and they all had funny-coloured hair. In a way, it was a precursor to the punk thing." If that is all there is from Bowie, then it sounds a little thin to make the transition-to-punk argument. It almost sounds as if Bowie is using Rotten and Vicious as surrogates for scenes from Stanley Kubrick's counterculture violence film about the 1960s, and little beyond that. If you can make the argument leading from DD to either The Clash or The Sex Pistols then great. Otherwise, I would suggest to trim the material as you describe doing this above in your comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Side One. It seems that "Rebel, Rebel" was the stand-out singles hit on this album and it might be nice to see a sentence or two more about it here in this section. It appears to be featured on numerous Bowie collections and music collection albums of that decade.
Yes, for the most part "Rebel Rebel" is the one song from Diamond Dogs that still gets modern attention from most listeners (hell, it was the one song I listened to the most off this album before I became a huge fan). In this section, I wanted the song to be treated equally among the rest of the tracks so there wasn't signs of "favoritism". Maybe I could add something in the legacy section or after "The single was a commercial success and quickly became a glam anthem." in the release section? – zmbro (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries about favoritism here since it was a stand-out hit, and I think Bowie knew that it was a stand-out hit from the way the album was originally promoted. In this case, I think it received more attention than even the title track and therefore its ok to add a few words about its special place on the album and its promotion. Maybe one or two sentences more should cover it sufficiently. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a couple sentences under release. Does that look ok? – zmbro (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks on target. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
In the Promotion section. You mention "Rebel" here again and it would be nice to see a sentence or two more about it. There is also a wikipedia article about its singles release. Bowie apparently knew that the track was not an exact match for this album, but was convinced that it had a strong popular appeal which he wanted to make the most of for promoting this new album. Can another sentence or two be added about this.
Added bit about "Rebel"'s US single mix (different than the UK), and its overall unfamiliarity with the rest of Diamond Dogs. – zmbro (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The addition you make helps here. I'm fairly sure that Bowie knew this was a special track on the album when it was released. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In Tour section. Your mention of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) and Robert Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) is interesting. Is it related at all to the other Orwell and Buroughs ties you discuss elsewhere in this article. Could if be slightly elaborated on this theme.
Actually no, it was due to Bowie's interest in German expressionist media. Pegg goes into great detail about it in The Complete David Bowie but I wanted to highlight the main points for this article (more detail can go into the Diamond Dogs Tour article if I ever decide to expand that). I added "primarily due to Bowie's interest in German expressionism." to that sentence Do you think it's alright now or needs more? – zmbro (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding German expressionism is good. Its not immediately known to the average Bowie reader. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion in the "Influence and legacy" section seems to be 95% influence and that might be a better single word title for this section. The elaboration given here seems to talk to the questions I raised for some of the previous sections: "Diamond Dogs' raw guitar style and visions of urban chaos, scavenging children and nihilistic lovers ("We'll buy some drugs and watch a band / Then jump in a river holding hands") have been credited with anticipating the punk revolution that would take place in the following years. According to Rolling Stone writer Mark Kemp, the album's "resigned nihilism inspired interesting gloom and doom from later goth and industrial acts such as Bauhaus and Nine Inch Nails"." Is the phrase here a reference to Bowie vision of Orwell or Burroughs as providing "visions of urban chaos, scavenging children and nihilistic lovers."

That should get things started and let me know when you are ready to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ErnestKrause Thanks for taking the time to review! I wanted to let you know that I will be on vacation until next week and won't be able to work on this until June. Is that ok with you? – zmbro (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Good edits so far. As to the exact date of your return, it will have to be played by ear. Try to ping me when you return. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
ErnestKrause I'm back. Am I ok to resume? – zmbro (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks ok to continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
ErnestKrause While making changes, I realized I never included Paul Trynka's biography Starman in the article so I'm going to be making additional expansions accordingly if that's ok with you (I would've done this sooner but I nominated this month's ago when I had yet to acquire access to the book, on top of doing tons of other projects). Are you going to stick to the 7-day period or am I free to take as much time as I want? Just want to make sure. – zmbro (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
During the last week, the copyvio issues check out as fine and the images also all check out on Wikimedia. The article looks closer to completion than I thought if you can bring in the edits mentioned in the original list above, possibly adding Trynka where appropriate to answer those questions. That would likely do it, and then you can bring in additional new material from Trynka into the peer reviewed article. This sounds like it would be quicker than the new option you just presented. What do you think about the first option or the second option? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
You're option will definitely be easier. I'll get to work as soon as I can. – zmbro (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there are just a few more items in the list of edit requests above which are still remaining. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I should be able to get to those sometime this weekend. – zmbro (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Zmbro: My comment from 6 June is above. Any more trims or changes? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
ErnestKrause Other than one useless edit none at all. Very sorry this is taking so long. Been having a ton of events pop up irl as well as me getting sidetracked with other WP projects. Ill try to get this fully squared away this weekend. – zmbro (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


### GAN Result
The nominating editor Zmbro has indicated a desire to make further edits to the article in the future to keep it up to date which is perfectly fine. As already mentioned above, the article is well-written and well-researched. There appear to be no copy-vii problems and all the images appear to check-out on Wikemedia. In this case, the nominating editor has not only improved the article to get it to good article status but has also shown an ability to keep improving the article into the future. Promoting article on this day. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ErnestKrause Oh wow did not expect that. Thank you! Thanks again for reviewing. – zmbro (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks zmbro! Great to see another GA Bowie article!!! 87Fan (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)