Talk:Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)

Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) is part of the David Bowie studio albums series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
August 8, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trivia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guitar synth

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Title

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alomar/Murray/Davis

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

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)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps) → Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) – MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:TITLES. The "(and Super Creeps)" part is not a subtitle, but a dependent clause that happens to be in parentheses. We do not mimic overcapitalization on single and album covers and other marketing materials, which tend to capitalize every single word. This song title is no different in any way from an article or book title like "The Life (and Death?) of the Black Hole"[1]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support move -- makes sense to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I saw the move request and was worried someone wanted to pull the parenthetical section completely, but fixing the unnecessary capitalization? I like it. 87Fan (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per detailed nomination. This should be uncontroversial. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be, but for two temporary issues: A) Lots of fanbois have a tendency to try to manufacture a bogus anti-MOS:CAPS and anti-WP:NCCAPS "controversy" about the lowercasing of anything in any song or other pop-culture title, so I tend to use full RM to build more and more precedent against this nonsense. B) The MoS advice on titles was scattered all over the place and in parts self-contradictory (as well as contradictory to major MoS pages like MOS:CAPS); I've been merging and normalizing this WP:POLICYFORKed material to MOS:TITLES slowly and carefully. But there actually was formerly some material in there that would have permitted this overcapitalization simply because parentheses were present; it mistakenly suggested a 1:1 relationship between "subtitle" and "in parentheses". That was wrong in both directions, e.g. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has a subtitle and no parens, while a journal article title like "Cryopreservation of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) embryogenic suspension cells and subsequent plant regeneration by vitrification" contains parens but no subtitle. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

Reporting inconsistency - "Despite the flop of 'Ashes to Ashes'"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Track listing

Good.

Personnel

synth-bass ought to be linked somewhere, presumably Keyboard bass.

Done. – zmbro _(talk) 22:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Comments are above. – zmbro _(talk) 22:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass: All good. Nice work! Tkbrett (✉) 12:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Antagonised"

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)[reply]