# Talk:Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)

How bout some trivia? I read somewhere that this was Trent Reznor's favorite Bowie album and perhaps his favorite album over all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.151.122 (talk • contribs) 

No prob putting it in if you can substantiate it - just don't recall seeing that anywhere myself.  Cheers, Ian Rose 04:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Trent Reznors page you will see that it mentiones "Low" but not this one.
I didn't know about the lyric supposedly pointed at Numan.  Fascinating.  Did this start a feud at the time or was it too vague a thing for Numan to get up in arms about?  I know that Bowie praised Numan's music later in his career and without Bowie had a huge influence on Numan's otherworldly songwriting. Timbrocks 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

David Buckley quotes Numan as saying he was actually quite chuffed about it, like "Hey, I'm in a Bowie song!" - even if it wasn't complimentary. I'm in the process of updating the Bowie album articles I've largely written to throw in more direct quotes/citations so I might put the whole quote in when I get to this one. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says, about Ashes to Ashes, that it was "built around an ear-catching guitar synth theme by Chuck Hammer". However the main riff is clearly a piano going through a rotary speaker or flanger or something similar; the article about Ashes to Ashes says that Hammer provided guitar textures, and the song certainly has a lot of guitar in the background, but there's no "guitar synth theme". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wrote most of this article yonks ago but another editor added all the guitar synth stuff, so I'm not too fussed about it! How about "featuring distinctive guitar synth textures by Chuck Hammer" or something like that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the album title simply Scary Monsters whereas the track on the album is called Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)?   203.39.12.130 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

I know a lot of websites and some of the CD reissues just say Scary Monsters, but the  title of the album is Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps).  This is evident when you look at the back cover of the original LP, shown in the article (the front cover has "Scary Monsters", the rear "and Super Creeps").  Also key reference works like Carr & Murray's Bowie: An Illustrated Record and Buckley's Strange Fascination use the full title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
But the album labels on the original UK vinyl release (BOW LP 2) just say Scary Monsters...as do other 1980 vinyl releases and the spine on my copy of the 1999 UK remastered CD. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
All I can advise is to re-read what I said above -- I'd have thought that was pretty definitive/convincing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Title is just Scary Monsters. The rest doesn't appear anywhere on the label and is just an element of the cover art. --VoicesInMyAnkle (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The title is neither "Scary Monsters" nor "Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)". It is "Scary Monsters...and Super Creeps". This is clearly written on the album cover, with "Scary Monsters..." on the front and "...and Super Creeps" on the back. When unfolded (it was a gatefold cover) the title is clearly laid out. There are no brackets. This article should be renamed.83.206.139.99 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Can't deny how it appears on the back cover, OTOH the article cites fairly authoritative sources, such as Carr & Murray and Buckley, who each employ parentheses in the title... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ian Rose Carr & Murray and Buckley aren't bigger authoritative sources than Nicholas Pegg, whose work in "The Complete David Bowie" has been called by Tony Visconti (co-producer of this album) as 'the best Bowie reference book'. And in Pegg's book the name of the album, just like in its front and back cover is: Scary Monsters... And Super Creeps. Besides, there isn't any single original 1980's edition where the title is spelled as: Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps). 190.162.189.242 (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Bowie's official website and the song "Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps)" both use parentheses. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't put much credence in the song title, but the official website and the vinyl label are incontrovertible.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Doctorhawkes In all the vinyl labels it is written simply as: Scary Monsters. While in the About section (davidbowie.com/about) of the official website it's spelled as: Scary Monsters... and Super Creeps. Just like in Nicholas Pegg "The Complete David Bowie", a book that unlike any other author's work on Bowie, was promoted by davidbowie.com several times when Bowie was still alive. Only posthumous editions (plus one RCA CD from 1984, made without the input of Bowie), have this title spelled with brackets. 190.162.189.242 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I was unclear, sorry. I wasn't advocating for this version, just against the ellipses. It seems clear their are many conflicting sources with no definitive title. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
See my reply below. It seems the only way we'll be able to resolve the issue is by contacting Bowie's website directly. It wouldn't be a problem if they used the ellipses consistently but they only appear on the about page. The actual album listing, and multiple news articles I posted below, use the parentheses so that's why I'm not accepting the ellipses. There are too many contradictions. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Doctorhawkes Yes, I agree that the option for the title with ellipses has conflicting sources. However, the title with brackets (as it's currently spelled in this Wikipedia page) is beyond just having conflicting sources, it just never was part of the original 1980's LP edition that was approved by Bowie himself (all the disc labels and spines from that year spelled the title simply as: Scary Monsters). That title with brackets has only featured in posthumous editions (besides the  1984's RCA CD made in West Germany, that didn't have any input from Bowie). Parlophone or even the estate can currently re-release this album or call it in the official website whatever they want, but the original release that was approved by Bowie can't be changed and shouldn't be modified in Wikipedia. Hence, the title of the album here should be only: Scary Monsters (perhaps keeping the explanation [a] regarding the ellipsis version as it is right now). 190.162.189.242 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro The title of a song isn't necessarily the same title of the album to which it belongs. While in the About section of David Bowie official website (see The 80s part), this album is spelled as: Scary Monsters... and Super Creeps 190.162.189.242 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
That is true... Looking at my other sources, Chris O'Leary just uses Scary Monsters, while Benoit Clerc and James Perone lists Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) with the parentheses. Apple Music and Spotify also use the parentheses title, as does other sources used in the article like this one. I can't seem to find any press releases from davidbowie.com about the album and I doubt Bowie himself would have spoken about it. Unless we get credible support from the website or Bowie or Visconti themselves, I think it's best the current title remains. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro Likely, in Spotify and Apple Music they just use what features in the latest digital edition from 2017 (with the remaster of that same year), but that edition is posthumous. And I don't think that an article from a magazine could be taken as a really reliable source. Besides Benoit Clerc and James Perone are just writers that have worked in several biographies of different artists, not authors specialized in Bowie. Unlike Nicholas Pegg, whose work on Bowie has even been promoted by the official website (when Bowie was still alive), and also his latest edition of "The Complete David Bowie” (where this album is spelled as: Scary Monsters… and Super Creeps) was called by Tony Visconti as ‘the best Bowie reference book’. I don't know how to post a link here, but you can just search in Google: Nicholas Pegg davidbowie.com. Just like you can search the section davidbowie.com/about in the same official website, and find that the album is also spelled as: Scary Monsters… and Super Creeps 190.162.189.242 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm fully aware, I own Pegg too. I checked both him and O'Leary to see if they mentioned anything in the song "Scary Monsters" sections and got no luck. I found two more bowie.com posts here and here that use the parentheses. I personally don't understand the big deal here. It seems like this is a case of the LP label renders the title one way but the title track is rendered another way so writers have adopted the song's rendering. Yeah Bowie's website uses ... on one page but on every other page I've found from them it's (). If you really want answers, have you thought about contacting Bowie's website directly? Perhaps they can look into it and publish an article clearing up the discrepancy.
There's been similar issues with Outside: some, including Pegg, say its actual title is 1. Outside while others remove the 1.. But given that that album's follow-ups were cancelled, removing the 1. makes sense, at least to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro I don't really know what to think about the Outside case, but at least there the 1. is printed in every cover of the original complete 1995's edition (I'm not considering the vinyl pressing, because that one was edited when it was released that year). While in this other case, there aren't any 1980's LP first editions, where the title of the album (not the song) is spelled with brackets, not in the cover, not in the spine nor in the disc label. 190.162.189.242 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro By the way, the case of the album 1.Outside or Outside, is exactly the opposite. In the official website features as 1.Outside everywhere, except for the About section. But there you choose to disregard what the official website (mainly) indicates. And I know that the follow-ups were cancelled (just like N. Pegg and the people behind the website also are aware of that), but if you choose to acknowledge as the superior authority what mostly that website says, that should be the same criteria used by all of these cases. 190.162.189.242 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
With Outside (and even Hours), we must adhere to WP:COMMONNAME and just note the proper stylizations in the opening sentences.
I was reading through the website's About page and they have not updated it since Bowie died (i.e. zero mention of No Plan or Toy). I primarily choose to disregard the website because there of their lack of consistency with the titles and the stylizations. On top of that, it's also been annoying how they constantly change release dates from concrete history because of "new evidence" (i.e. Ziggy and Aladdin Sane).
Yeah, Scary Monsters is rendered with ellipses on the actual vinyl label, but in most written articles since 1980, it's rendered with parentheses. Because of that, it makes sense to me why the parentheses have been used on Wikipedia, one per WP:COMMONNAME and two because it's consistent with the title track's rendering. Besides, the article itself has always had a note explaining that the title is rendered with ellipses on the vinyl label and that it only lists Scary Monsters as the title on the spine (I never changed that).
I honestly didn't realize some people thought so strongly on this (I certainly didn't when I expanded this article years ago) and I honestly don't think it's that big a deal now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
@Zmbro If the About section hasn't been updated since Bowie passed away, wouldn't it be most likely that this content has been written according to Bowie's will or even with his approval, at least in the earlier parts that concerns the subject of this page?
And if it really isn't a big deal for you now, why do you insist on supporting posthumous publications from the website (most likely from Parlophone and not the Estate), or average magazine articles (without any particular expertise on Bowie)? Where's the reach for consensus suggested in WP:COMMONNAME? For instance, here you're the only one putting credence in the name of the song “Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)” as an argument to maintain a title of an album that doesn't feature spelled like that in any original 1980’s LP issue.
I’m not saying that the album should have ellipses every time it is spelled. I am just arguing against the spelling with brackets, and in favour of the general title for this Wikipedia page as simply: Scary Monsters 190.162.189.242 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
As a long follow up to this, and as this album turned 45 today, Bowie's website posted about it. In the post, the title is Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), so that should put a rest on this matter. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth putting in the article that this is the last Bowie album with Dennis Davis & George Murray (and the Alomar/Murray/Davis rhythm section).--Design (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we just want to be able to cite it -- will check my copy of Buckley for an explicit mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Done -- Buckley doesn't make a big thing about it being the last for Davis and Murray but does explicitly mention the trio being the rhythm section from Station to Station until Scary Monsters, so I worded it accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps). 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/20111107224423/http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103181930/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/david%20bowie/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/David%20Bowie/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828064820/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=300
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) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


### Post move comment
Roman Spinner, SMcCandlish, did you notice this reverses a previous move 07:37, 26 July 2015‎ SilkTork (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (63 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (SilkTork moved page Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) to Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps) over redirect: MOS:CT) by an experienced admin and RM regular? The RM was an excellent idea for that reason alone. I comment also because of course that history is now overwritten. Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "Despite the flop of "Ashes to Ashes"" is incongruent with the rest of the article and not backed up on the link page for the track Ashes to Ashes. Commercially, the track was very successful in the UK and other non-US markets, and one of the most recognisable tracks from the album and the artist. To call it a flop, just because of its reception in the United States is myopic and ethnocentric. Andmark (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Andmark Thanks for the edit, I wholeheartedly agree. When I was writing that my mind was on the fact that the single underperformed in the US, even though like you said it was a major success everywhere else; and when you read the phrase without knowing the rest of the sentence it does come off as incorrect. I went ahead and removed that phrase as the sentence works just fine without it. Thanks again. – zmbro (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 15:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's time I returned the favour to someone that's been such a big help lately. I'll get through this one sometime this week. Tkbrett (✉) 15:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox
Could you confirm the date "Ashes to Ashes" released as a single? In the infobox it says 12 August 1980, in the release section it says 8 August, and on its associated article it says 1 August.
I think I must have misinterpreted something there. I cited O'Leary yet he says 1 August, so not sure what happened there. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Lead
The music on the album has elements of...: reads a little awkward. How about "incorporates elements of"?
Done. – zmbro (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlike prior releases, Bowie spent time writing the music and lyrics; ...: awkward phrasing. I know what you are going for b/c of what appears after the semi-colon, but this bit reads as a dig.
Agree. Changed to "Unlike the improvisational nature of prior releases," – zmbro (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Rest is solid.


### Background
The trilogy was made in collaboration with musician Brian Eno and producer Tony Visconti.[1] The trilogy was highly influential; ...: somewhat repetitive w/ "The trilogy was... The trilogy was...". Consider joining them as something like Made in collaboration with musician Brian Eno and producer Tony Visconti, the trilogy was highly influential.
Done. – zmbro (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Recording and production
Guitarist Adrian Belew, who played on Lodger, claimed to have received advanced payment...: claim is a word to watch (MOS:CLAIM) since it implicitly calls into question the statement's credibility.
Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Artwork and packaging
The lettering used was a reworking of Gerald Scarfe's lettering for Pink Floyd's The Wall, which would be replicated on many album covers following its release.: Which one was replicated often? Bowie's or Pink Floyd's?
Pegg: "The ink-blot lettering, an adaptation of the Gerald Scarfe style popularized a few months earlier by Pink Floyd’s The Wall, would be replicated on countless sleeve designs over the next few years." So I think Bowie's? – zmbro (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
...following its release: the "its" here is ambiguous since it could be referring to either Scary Monsters or The Wall. Pegg's original wording avoids the ambiguity by saying it was the lettering people were imitating. I'd try to reword it with that in mind.
I agree. Changed to "in ensuing years" is that better? – zmbro (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks good.


### Release
The single and video are both regarded as one of Bowie's finest, ...: by whom?
His biographers; fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Aftermath
Good.


### Influence and legacy
Although Bowie would receive worldwide mega-stardom and commercial success in the following years...: mega-stardom isn't really something you receive so much as achieve. Anyway, this seems a bit like peacockery.
Good point. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Track listing
Good.


### Personnel
synth-bass ought to be linked somewhere, presumably Keyboard bass.
Done. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Charts and certifications
Good.


### References
In places, I checked the information in the article against sources where able and it appears to be well referenced.
copyvio score is 30.6% (violation unlikely)


### Final comments and verdict
Images are either PD or, in the case the two pieces of album art, appropriately marked as fair use.
On the whole a very well written article. You make it look easy! I made several fixes as I was going through. If any of them look strange just let me know. Once the comments above are addressed we're good to go. Tkbrett (✉) 19:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing! Comments are above. – zmbro (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 Pass: All good. Nice work! Tkbrett (✉) 12:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zmbro, don't have my copy of Buckley handy but I don't think we're using "antagonised" the right way in Numan, a huge fan of Bowie's, was antagonised by Bowie's fanbase as a mere copycat. It'd be correct (grammatically and in fact) to say Numan, a huge fan of Bowie's, antagonised Bowie's fanbase, who considered Numan a mere copycat. Another option is Numan, a huge fan of Bowie's, was disparaged by Bowie's fanbase as a mere copycat. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)