Acoustic Sounds
Lyra

David Bowie

Diamond Dogs

Music

Sound

David Bowie - Diamond Dogs half speed 50th anniversary

Label: Parlophone

Produced By: David Bowie

Engineered By: Keith Harwood

Mixed By: David Bowie, Tony Visconti, Keith Harwood

Mastered By: John Webber at AIR Studios

By: Malachi Lui

June 16th, 2024

Format:

Vinyl

‘Diamond Dogs’ Half-Speed Plagued By Questionable EQ

David Bowie’s 1974 LP gets mixed bag 50th anniversary reissue

David Bowie’s self-produced 1974 album Diamond Dogs is undoubtedly the worst of his run from Hunky Dory through Scary Monsters (Pin Ups doesn’t count). As a messy exit from his glam period, it compiles ambitious ideas with less than ideal execution, yet in a sense, it still seems unfairly maligned.

Everyone knows the story by now: Bowie, on stage at the Hammersmith Odeon in 1973, “killed” Ziggy Stardust and thus freed himself for whatever came next. Ready for even grander theatricality, he explored several ideas including a Ziggy Stardust musical and a (made for TV?) production of George Orwell’s 1984; of course, the Ziggy musical never happened and he couldn’t get the adaptation rights to 1984, so the resulting slew of ideas became his next proper album, Diamond Dogs. Without a new, stable backing band, Bowie played the guitars himself but recruited Mike Garson (piano), Herbie Flowers (bass), and drummers Tony Newman and Aynsley Dunbar. The former three would end up on the Diamond Dogs Tour, which after July 1974 morphed into the Philly Dogs tour on which only Garson remained. 1974 quickly became a very confusing year in Bowie’s career, but first comes the Diamond Dogs record itself—part glam rock, part apocalyptic concept album, unquestionably half-baked but rewarding.

Diamond Dogs’ main problem is that, despite its conceptual aura, it doesn’t really commit to anything specific. Side one establishes an apocalyptic sci-fi setting in the somewhat indulgent Stones-esque title track, logically continues with the melodramatic eight-minute “Sweet Thing” suite (one of Bowie’s best-arranged works), then disrupts it with Ziggy musical leftover “Rebel Rebel.” Side two gets into the 1984 scraps, but not before the decent but unremarkable ballad “Rock ’n’ Roll With Me.” The closing 1984 suite has its moments but never fully gels together; “We Are The Dead” drags on too long, “Chant Of The Ever Circling Skeletal Family” is an inconclusive ending, and the live versions of “1984” and “Big Brother” are much more realized than the studio recordings.

Really, Diamond Dogs made most sense in Bowie’s 1974 live sets, documented so far on David Live (or as he called it, David Bowie Is Alive And Well And Living Only In Theory), Cracked Actor, and I’m Only Dancing. The former, recorded during his July 1974 Philadelphia residency, captures the tour as originally envisioned: more conventional rock-focused arrangements played with theatrical grandeur on a big stage set (no official video release to see it, but the 2005 mix is the best listening experience). After the July shows, Bowie stayed in Philly to record the tentatively named The Gouster at Sigma Sound; at New York’s Record Plant in January 1975, The Gouster became his soul hit Young Americans.

Already committed to his new sound, Bowie revamped the Diamond Dogs Tour for its second leg, where it became the Philly Dogs Tour. The new lineup included more Sigma session musicians, including rhythm guitarist Carlos Alomar (who stayed with Bowie through Scary Monsters) and backing singers Ava Cherry (Bowie’s mistress) and a still-unknown Luther Vandross. The posthumously released Cracked Actor, featuring the September 5 Los Angeles show, captures the tour’s musical midpoint while I’m Only Dancing, recorded primarily in October, is the full-on Soul Tour. Throughout it all, Bowie’s coke addiction became more prominent, and his voice got noticeably raspier especially in October and November. Still, his performances were endlessly charismatic and the touring band one of his tightest ever. (Weirdly enough, David Live is actually the worst of the three 1974 live albums, as it fails to sell him as anything beyond a “competent” performer.)

Anyway, back to Diamond Dogs, which is easily Bowie’s worst sounding analog recording: bass-shy, sort of veiled, and stuffy. Despite yet another opportunity to alleviate these issues, the new 50th anniversary half-speed edition cut by John Webber only creates more problems. Like the other recent Bowie half-speeds, it was cut on a modified Neumann VMS80 from “192kHz restored masters,” presumably originating from the “archive” flat transfer made for the last reissue series. I also have a UK original (“1oly” matrix on side one, Kevin Metcalfe cut on side two) and the 2016 Who Can I Be Now? box set reissue mastered by Ray Staff; none of them are great, but the new half-speed is by far the most annoying.

Both the 2016 remaster and the 50th anniversary have essentially no high frequency information. I assume it’s a tape issue, as Bowie’s master tapes have been notoriously mishandled. Yet each reissue addresses it differently: Staff chose a somewhat “balanced” presentation with a thicker lower midrange, while Webber massively boosted the bass and went for a more lively upper midrange. While the half-speed thankfully doesn’t have the 2016’s super plasticky transients, the bass boost (with any deep bass rolled off) makes the 50th anniversary pressing sound artificially blown up and sluggish. It’s amateurish, like a little kid playing around with a graphic equalizer on a boombox. I can’t really recommend either of the recent reissues.

That said, I must admire how Parlophone and the Bowie estate keep reissuing the same records with different, equally crappy sonic profiles each time. Maybe they’re planning a better 60th anniversary series next, but at this point I think they’re just that clueless about sound quality. None of the recent Bowie product has sounded good, merely serviceable at best. (The Brilliant Adventures [1992-2001] box set got away with it because of that era’s rapid technological changes and thus inconsistent sound quality. But for 70s Bowie? C’mon, do better.) The reissue team needs a consultant who actually knows what these records originally sounded like, who doesn’t indulge in revisionism, and who still has functioning ears. It doesn’t look like they’ve had anyone who checks all three criteria. Both original UK cuts of Diamond Dogs sound energetic, while the reissues sound desperate at best.

(The half-speed packaging is the same direct-to-board gatefold jacket as the last reissue, with the uncensored cover and one of those fake obi strips. The 180g Optimal pressing comes in a poly-lined inner sleeve and plays quiet… even if I’d prefer my battered UK original any day of the week. Priced at around $25; you get what you pay for, I guess.)

Music Specifications

Catalog No: 5054197816437 / DBDD 50

Pressing Plant: Optimal Media

SPARS Code: ADA

Speed/RPM: 33 1/3

Weight: 180 grams

Size: 12"

Channels: Stereo

Source: 192kHz Digital Transfer

Presentation: Single LP

Comments

  • 2024-06-16 08:26:05 PM

    Tony G wrote:

    Boy Malachi, you really are missing out on a wonderfully recorded Keith harwood album. I have both an original US and UK pressing and they are vibrant cohesive and extremely musical. I saw David twice that year, first at Madison square garden in July with the apocalyptic set then in late October at radio city with the soul review. The crowd was initially a bit confused at the surprised soul show style shift, but he quickly won over most of the crowd. 1974 was a extraordinary year for bowie, where he begins a 6 year run of the artistic metamorphosis of styles that has defined him. A nightmare/dream haze of an album if there ever was. Well you know, this ain’t rock n roll, this is genocide.

  • 2024-06-17 03:14:09 AM

    Chris kyriakou wrote:

    I cannot speak on this particular pressing but your take on this album is questionable. Listen harder!

  • 2024-06-17 03:58:01 AM

    Adrian Galpin wrote:

    I must respectfully disagree with how describe this production...have the same UK original (1only/kev) and I think that it sounds great...maybe not the very best Bowie production, but still very rewarding and exciting nevertheless, definitely to be included among his best LPs.

  • 2024-06-17 11:47:42 AM

    Andrew Curtis wrote:

    I love Bowie's cocaine-era raspy voice on live recordings, even if it nearly killed him.

    • 2024-06-17 08:56:55 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      i somewhat agree - 'live nassau coliseum 76' from the isolar tour is one of my favorite live albums of his

      • 2024-06-18 08:27:20 AM

        Andrew Curtis wrote:

        Mine would be I'm Only Dancing (The Soul Tour 74). Very ragged voice (love), band and performances very immediate. They all sound like they're playing for their lives.

  • 2024-06-17 03:35:14 PM

    Zaphod wrote:

    Everybody needs to remember that ALL reviews, especially musical recording, are purely down to personal taste. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

    Could it be that this recording was listened to on a system that has equipment that is too revealing but if it was listened to on another system it might be more enjoyable?

    How do you even rate the level of “Music” and/or “Sound” a particular album has? It is all down to personal opinion.

    As far as mixing goes, again, personal choice. Some people might like more bass or less bass, but is it indeed right or wrong?

    Why do you even need to mix anything? Isn’t mixing changing the sound of the original live recording? Does not the RIAA require the frequencies to be manipulated before being cut into a record? The engineer is mixing by listening to the live recording via studio speakers or headphones, how did those colour the sound? Each of our ears sensitive instruments that, unfortunately change over time. Plus our own personal taste colour what we hear.

    All these various factors make it hard to review any product and then being able to write an article explaining said beliefs is even more difficult, especially if it is to be entertaining.

    • 2024-06-17 09:24:54 PM

      Silk Dome Mid wrote:

      "...equipment that is too revealing"? That's an oxymoron. A system that reveals more information is what's known as "better equipment".

      • 2024-06-18 05:46:15 AM

        Zaphod wrote:

        I was just repeating a phrase I have heard many times, I obviously did not explain my thoughts clearly, but that is why I am not a professional writer. I am not going to bother trying to explain as I do not want to prove how ignorant I am.

        • 2024-06-18 07:43:52 PM

          Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

          No, that was awesome above. There are thousands of variables that factor into the end sound in your room. While I love Silk's input and see where they are at here, I do fully see what you are saying.

          Just on bass- range points alone - accurate may mean 'lean' to most and then the conversation turns all crazy when arguing bass-range plusses and minuses. Great example is Raising Sand by Plant / Krauss. MANY have claimed it's overblown, etc. They are wrong. It IS power and force and fully represented in some tracks, but it is NOT overblown. It takes better equipment and / or listening to digital download or cd sources to triangulate, as to what the vinyl playback is presenting. Regardless, a ton of it is subjective and available to only pressing comparisons, really. The truth is out there, but it costs Fremer-level investment.

  • 2024-06-17 04:05:11 PM

    Azmoon wrote:

    Good review. Bowie is one of the most overrated rock musicians in history. And this album is really a dog.

    • 2024-06-17 09:13:44 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      the 'overrated' point is interesting. even though i'm a MASSIVE bowie fan, i can't really disagree with that. his innovation was mostly in image/presentation (and there are even questions surrounding that), while the music was mostly an interpretation of new ideas that came from less popular artists (eno, lou reed, scott walker etc). still, i don't think it detracts from the quality of the work; things can be great without being the most innovative, groundbreaking art on the planet.

  • 2024-06-17 04:41:39 PM

    Georges wrote:

    The Spiders are missing on this disc and on the following ones. Because they offered him a musical direction which would have avoided all these fillers around a flagship title (here 'Rebel Rebel' unfortunately enveloped in not even degenerate lalala). And certainly better sounding. After 1973, almost everything sounds hollow, it's no longer rnr and not even rock (in the solid sense). All while seeking sales at all costs, without the slightest folly, only competent. He should have taken an example from Iggy or Lou, whom he knew! Yes, a miracle that he lasted so long, with everything he took. Sad.

    • 2024-06-17 08:58:58 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      i enjoy the spiders era but i think his best run of albums was 'young americans' through 'scary monsters.' 'low' is one of my top five favorite albums of all time.

      • 2024-06-17 09:55:00 PM

        Georges wrote:

        Ah OK, you're really his megafan. I own all his releases but really after 1973 it was a bore. Besides, his sales collapsed (they weren't great), he even tried to become an actor but was rather disastrous, cold as death in all his roles... Did you see him on stage ?

        • 2024-06-17 10:30:42 PM

          Malachi Lui wrote:

          of course not! too young to have seen him live... as for his film roles, i think he was great in 'the man who fell to earth' but predictably horrible in 'labrynth'. the latter is more an issue of where his career was at the time that he was perhaps desperate enough to even take that role, in that awful film with the most garish haircut to ever exist.

          • 2024-06-18 12:32:55 PM

            Georges wrote:

            I saw him in 2003 and it was okay. Already there were fewer musicians. But still 2 guitars and sometimes keyboards, it was a little too much for me. Add many hollow moments which coincided - curiously (?) - with the pieces of his albums after 1980. So a good ten songs (all the same), mainly from 'Reality' (what a title, to begin with...). On a positive note, he was in fine form and no 'Let's Dance' or 'Modern love' in sight. Finally following your response, I rewatched the film by Nicolas Roeg (1928-2018) and it is not so bad. The scenario is less credible and the direction less accomplished than in 'Performance' from 1968 but there he was only co-director so this explains a lot. Also Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg are much more extroverted, a huge advantage in cinema. He was also in 'The Hunger' or 'Furyo', appears in Gigolo (he performs 'Revolutionary Song' on the soundtrack). Not all of these films were hugely successful, but they are not flops either.

      • 2024-06-18 07:46:32 PM

        Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

        TOTALLY Freaking agree... those and that era. ALL of it is precious, but personally- that Low. Or Scary Monsters. Or.. lol.

  • 2024-06-17 06:56:26 PM

    Michael Fremer wrote:

    Interesting comments so far. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion/reaction to this record. I saw this show July 1974 at the Boston Music Hall and having seen Bowie on every tour since "Ziggy...." at the same Music Hall (and then at Carnegie Hall and Detroit and Chicago as many readers know since I beat them over the head with it :-) ) , I was disappointed by all of it as I loved the Ziggy and Aladdin Sane tour shows. The complicated set was ambitious but seemed flimsy and designed to distract from the unformed music. Mick Ronson's absence hurts. Bowie was also distracted (we now know why). I never liked the recorded sound either. It's an album I rarely play though "Rebel Rebel" is a great song. I think Bowie was "between thoughts". He was certainly between concepts. I've read the revisionist thinking Malachi alludes to and I don't hear it. As for the sound of this reissue, I compared it to a Japanese original that I think sounds better than the American (haven't heard the U.K.) and this new reissue is as Malachi describes it. I didn't much like it either.

    • 2024-06-17 07:52:12 PM

      Chris kyriakou wrote:

      There is no such thing as bowie being “between thoughts” on this album or transitioning for that matter, he was simply evolving we each record. Yes the production is murky but that’s what gives it it’s personality - eg. tracks like the ‘sweet thing’ suite & ‘we are the dead’ or ‘big brother’ would not sound better “cleaned up.” It is currently one of the most annoying fads that is in motion - to audiophile everything up. I’m looking at you Black Sabbath self-titled reissue. Give me a break! I feel people have forgotten why all those 60’s & 70’s albums were great & it had nothing to do with adopting an audiophile mentality. Not everything needs to sound like it’s been processed thru pro tools - that is why music has sounded the same in the last 25 years. This isn’t one of those albums, it’s dramatic theatre art rock & along with the album Lodger are some of his most interesting albums. Popular or flop is irrelevant. Move on from Ziggy people!

      • 2024-06-17 09:07:36 PM

        Malachi Lui wrote:

        it seems that most bowie scholars would agree that 'diamond dogs' is a transitional album, especially considering it's mostly scraps from other aborted projects. (that said, 'scary monsters' also ties up some scraps from his previous work, yet as the culmination of his prime era is one of his best records.)

        the production on 'diamond dogs' is murky, which i agree isn't always a bad thing but doesn't work as well here. though my main grievance with the reissue is that it tries to clean up and 'fix' things that shouldn't be fixed. i don't like that the recent bowie remasters sound too sanitized.

        regardless of sound quality, this isn't one of my favorite bowie albums. 'young americans' through 'scary monsters' was his best run of albums, 'low' especially is in my all-time top 5. you said 'listen harder' earlier but i've heard all of these albums countless times.

        • 2024-06-18 01:25:12 AM

          Todd wrote:

          My teenage son turned me onto “low”. You young guys have good taste.

        • 2024-06-18 08:57:20 AM

          Chris kyriakou wrote:

          Get your hands on an original UK ‘Oly’ pressing if you can or even a U.S. they both are similar sounding. The U.S. pressings of the run of albums that you prefer are the best. Low’s U.S. kills the UK (veiled) pressing & is a perfect example of how most people are under the deception that origin of country are the superior pressings. I could easily have Bowie’s entire 70’s output in my top 200 albums of all time but I feel an album like diamond dogs is less contrived than say something like young Americans or even low for that matter.

          • 2024-06-18 03:33:20 PM

            Malachi Lui wrote:

            i have the original UK and US pressings of 'low' (both cut at sterling) as well as the 1980 RCA international green label UK reissue. i absolutely prefer the UK original even if the US original is more 'naturalistic'.

            • 2024-06-19 01:10:31 AM

              Chris kyriakou wrote:

              It is odd for me to hear you say that you prefer the sound of Low that is not “naturalistic”. Factually, every album from David Live onwards, the U.S. pressings were the first pressings and that’s painfully obvious when you hear the UK versions. I know it’s all subjective but I completely disagree with your take on this. Are you sure this review was submitted to the right place? Sounds like a review for Pitchfork. ;)

    • 2024-06-17 09:59:21 PM

      Georges wrote:

      100% agree. As usual.

  • 2024-06-18 02:20:03 AM

    Mark Ward wrote:

    Very insightful as always. I am so sick and tired of these lackluster rock/pop remasters/reissues. To the larger picture. I am such a huge Bowie fan that I find something to love in everything, even the later stuff. Saw him on various tours from Serious Moonlight onwards, but have to say his final "Reality" tour was killer (I saw him playing support to Moby!!) My wife saw him on the Thin White Duke tour and it remains her favorite show of his. Station to Station is probably my fave album, but followed very closely by Low and Heroes. All original UK pressings sound great, but I must say I rarely listen to Diamond Dogs. Will give it a spin.

    • 2024-06-18 07:14:05 AM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      the live album from the 'reality' tour is fantastic, really captures him at what might have been his most energetic (especially after the 90s, when his studio work was interesting but his live recordings not so great). 'station to station' is absolutely a top 5 bowie album, perhaps top 3 - it's hard to decide past 'low' and 'blackstar' being at the top for me.

      that said, for 'young americans' and 'station to station', the US pressings are the true originals since those albums were done here. both sound pretty good, especially compared to the recent reissues. when i first got an original US 'young americans' after knowing the reissue for years, it was almost like i could hear bowie's coke drip! haha

      outside of jazz and classical reissues, the new vinyl market in general is BLEAK. it's been ages since a pop or rock reissue not done by a specialty label has warranted a good review, and as far as new music? i haven't bought ANY new release pop or rock album in the last two years that's provided significant benefit over the digital master. john cale's 'mercy' and the most recent blur and arctic monkeys albums were slightly better on vinyl, but even that's becoming rare. most recently i bought the new charli xcx LP and, nice packaging aside, it felt like a waste of money. it's become so mediocre that i might go back to buying CDs for new music, which is really unfortunate. this wasn't a problem five years ago.

      • 2024-06-18 05:09:28 PM

        tony a wrote:

        My original US issue of DD is one of the worse sounding recordings I own but still listenable and enjoyable. I believe you when you say the new mastering is worse, which is a lost opportunity for sure. As for the music, it still works for me. The title track as well as "Rebel Rebel" are very strong songs and worth the price of admission, "1984" to a lesser extent. The "Sweet Thing / Canidate / Sweet Thing" suite is OK, made salvageable by the dark foreboding atmosphere and the killer Bowie Sax solo. Where it lost it's chance for greatness is the missed opportunity in "Big Brother" to exploit the piano in the mix a-la' Alladin Sane. But then again a bright in the mix piano solo goes against the whole dark apocalyptic concept.

      • 2024-06-18 05:26:04 PM

        Ronan O’Gorman wrote:

        Thanks Malachi for another great review, regarding sound I have the majority of my DB catalogue on Ryko. CD. They have their shortcomings but are the most consistent mastering accross all cds, they are fairly inexpensive on DISCOGS

  • 2024-06-18 05:01:11 PM

    Michael Fremer wrote:

    I just want to add that this site's "community" has really grown to become something really wonderful....different opinions yes, but mostly very respectful and that's how I hope it continues!

    • 2024-06-18 05:52:33 PM

      Georges wrote:

      Yes, excellent point! Thanks to you and the other authors who always manage to bring us diverse, surprising information and opinions based on your tastes and varied experiences. Keep going !

    • 2024-06-18 07:49:29 PM

      Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

      Strangely enough, I view your site has scared ground. Stereophile's trolls brought out the fighter in me. Sorry if I ever over-stepped my bounds on Analog Planet or SP.

    • 2024-06-18 10:36:24 PM

      Todd wrote:

      The comment section could use some improvement. Especially an email notification for replies.

    • 2024-06-20 10:52:15 AM

      Tim wrote:

      I think you should create a forum. This would be best option to expand the community, promote discussion and allow for controlled mud-slinging (jokes).

  • 2024-06-19 12:07:39 AM

    Vocalion wrote:

    I only really am checking the comments to see whether Malachi is mixing it up with any of the other commenters. I legitimately believe that Malachi has good taste and good ears, but he can’t resist clickbaity titles and opinionated comments in his reviews to stir up engagement. I’ll believe that he is a serious reviewer when he can resist those urges.

  • 2024-06-21 11:46:45 AM

    Georges wrote:

    I like freedom, not censorship (which reduces credibility to 0). Like on the Steve Hoffman "forum" or Stereophile (they apparently forgot to ban me from Analog planet, their sister site). Do not accept opinions contrary to your own, so in fact everything except yours is a pathology. Especially since here I don't see what could hurt. I also own 'Scary monsters'. Even if for me it comes down to the single 'ATA' and the wonderful Natasha Korniloff's costume he wears in the video. Each his own.