quite possibly.

and i may or may not be selling them to the "other team" ...

In the David Bowie canon I've always felt that ''Heroes'' was better than ''Low''. Despite the articulated arguments of many knowledgeable musicians and fans a like, I've just always thought that ''Low'' was slightly inferior.

yeah, Low 'feels' like a better album. If that makes sense. It somehow seems more significant or 'important' when I listen to it. Of the two though I definitely prefer 'Heroes'.

One word asserts Heroes' superiority over Low:

Neukoln

Low=Much better drum sound

david bowie is mediocre at best

"In Rainbows" belongs to the top three Radiohead records, right after Kid A and OK Calculator.

oh my god

"Hi there. We're electronic music of the last 20 years."

Pink Floyd is the best band I've ever heard.

U2 have made more good albums than bad ones.

Now the opinions are getting really unpopular!
+1
I've listened to Ziggy Stardust dozen of times, trying in vain to hear some part of his "genius".
Without his reputation, I'd have quit way earlier.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

i was wondering, who's that dude in your signature, SuperCreep? it ain't David Tibet, is it?

It is. That's what makes it so amazing.

how worried should I be that you took me seriously there?

... have to say though, your examples don't quite support your point, i mean, it's like you put pictures of tad, screaming trees and mudhoney up stood back and said "Voila! guitar music of the last fifty years, never been healthier!"

David Bowie is BORING AOR rock, and always has been, disguised as groundbreaking new "styles" which he stole from true rockers.

Says the ARCHERS OF LOAF fan haha. I can see how some peeps don't dig Bowie, but AOR?!?! Have you listened to The Man Who Sold The World or Scary Monsters? He openly admits he's never had an original idea in interviews (but this is the case for a lot of artists).

fuck bowie

I like the archers of loaf, but not as much as I like bowie.

does that make me halfway on-topic here?