Posted in music on January 15, 2013

The Next Day

Last week, David Bowie's longtime collaborator/producer Tony Visconti said Bowie is "fairly adamant he's never gonna perform live again." However in Visconti's new interview with Rolling Stone, things look slightly more positive:

The big question: Do you think Bowie will tour?

He says that he will only play if he feels like it, but no tour. Like, if [he] wanted to do the odd show in New York or, I don't know, London, he would if he felt like it. And he made that very clear to the label that he wasn't going to tour or do any kind of ridiculously long album promotion. It was his idea to just drop it at midnight on his birthday and just let things avalanche.

Do you really think it's possible he'd do just one show?

It's possible, if he feels like it. I don't know. I spoke to him two days ago and he said, "I'm really adamant I'm not gonna do a tour." And he said, "If I might, I might do one show." But who knows when.

Here's to hoping he feels like it!

Bowie's first album in ten years, The Next Day, comes out this March. If you're wondering (we were), Rolling Stone is saying that really is the album cover. The video for the single, "Where Are We Now?," is below.

---

David Bowie - "Where Are We Now?"

---

      

Comments (44)

Not surprised if that is album cover. Bowie is very vain and I'm sure he is showing his age.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:04 PM

Barclays Center headlining The National show

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:04 PM

Opening for The National?

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:07 PM

I love Bowie but can we stop having articles everytime Visconti speaks?

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:08 PM

Face times anything.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:20 PM

More bullshit teasing. Surprise, surprise.


He just wants to find out just how many people hold their breath without hesitation.


Total fuck yawwwwwwnnnnnn

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:24 PM

Don't tease, David.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:27 PM

hello , Face times anything.

Posted by noor | January 15, 2013 4:33 PM

Just play fucking Coachella already! They will easily cut you a check for a ridiculous amount of cash and you can relax in the desert for a week.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:34 PM

he's going to tour with Grimes

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:39 PM

he will hold out for a major cash grab

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:41 PM

4:33- Agreed. Especially if he does a small theater gig. 10x face.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:55 PM

4:41 - Bowie is unpredictable. He'll do things just because he wants to. A cash grab is possible, but don't be surprised if he does snall things (i.e. the "5 boroughs tour he did in 2002)

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 4:56 PM

I'll take a NYC show to go please...

Posted by zincink | January 15, 2013 5:21 PM

A " cash grab " ?! are you fucking retarded? Bowie has sold 140 million records and made boatloads of money touring for 30 years-
to say nothing of investments and streams of income outside the music biz. you must be the dumbest motherfucker to ever post a comment.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 5:23 PM

I'll go see him if he doesn't play this awful new song

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 5:48 PM

Hey 5:23....you think because he has made all of this money he would not hold out for a cash grab? Ever heard of the rolling stones? Mick and Keith have made SHITLOADS of cash off albums and tours and still demand SHITLOADS of money to tour. When mick said a week ago that he was "mulling offers" for a 2013 tour you dont think that was code for "i want the offer that offers me the biggest shitload of money?

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 5:54 PM

COACHELLA

just you wait, guys

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 6:07 PM

dumbest motherfucker ever to post a comment on bv is ron paul guy.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 6:11 PM

554

Mick is a hack compared to Bowie. Ever see jagger "dance" on stage? It's like he an infusion of chicken blood before he went onstage. Back in the day the stones were a great band. they lost their shit after Sticky Fingers, their last great record. Exile was nothing more than a bunch English drunks and junkies trying to interpret US R +B. A few good songs after that but mostly creatively spent. Bowie did groundbreaking innovative shit and no, just my opinion, but I don't he's doing this (unlike the stones) for the money.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 7:08 PM

NIN blew Bowie off the stage in the Outside Tour. I knew most of Bowie's stuff, none of NIN.

Have seen Bowie 3 times, including the Wiltern in LA. Just saw the Stones, and must say the Stones blew anything I've ever seen Bowie do away. & I thought the Stones show might be weak. Bowie way overrated live imo. Same as this "single"

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 8:45 PM

845 You are clueless or you just don't like him. I've seen both artists at least 8 times since the 70's including The Stones recently. Why compare them? They are both legends. The Stones may be more fun but Bowie is and was way more interesting. I think the new single is memorizing.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 8:51 PM

I rest my case if you call the new single mesmerizing. As in terrible?... Were your Bowie shows mesmerizing as well?

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 8:55 PM

Coachella? NO WAY! That would be an awful choice. Anyone talking about Bowie doing a "moneygrab", you have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you people comparing him to the Stones? They are an oldies band, he is an artist. And I love The Stones. If you don't understand the new single, you just don't understand David Bowie so please don't go if he decides to play live! I can't wait for the new album. Just look at all of those end of year charts - popular music is at an alltime low in creativity. We need people like him.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 8:59 PM

Agree he is an artist, but as with most artists, all the output isn't great. I hope the rest of the record is better, I really do.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 9:24 PM

Comparing Bowie to the Stones is apple: oranges. Solo Jagger? ridiculous.

Bowie is not only a great artist he made huge stars of Lou Reed and Iggy Pop
when they washed up nobodies- to say nothing of Mott the Hoople who coulda, woulda, shoulda been as big as the Stones.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 9:43 PM

LOL, are people here really arguing over who "understands" Bowie more?


Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 9:54 PM

I understand that Bowie is the type of artist who (like me) enjoys an occasional hummus platter.

Posted by Anonymous | January 15, 2013 11:21 PM

954 It's obvious you just don't understand.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 1:11 AM

c
o
a
c
h
e
l
l
a

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 1:18 AM

Coachella? I think he would rather play to adults.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 2:09 AM

he should play Carnegie Hall

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 8:33 AM

He is broke. He will make spare change on the record. He has to tour to support himself and old ugly Iman

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 9:23 AM

If Bowie does it for a money grab good for him every other oldtime artist is doing it why shouldn't he.

Bowie>R Stones since 71. Bowie's music much more interesting than Stones pop Rock & Roll.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 9:34 AM

Maybe we'll get some Moby & Chemical Brothers collaborations on this next record.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 9:38 AM

that album cover makes me ANGRY

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 9:56 AM

i hope that EVERY concert/tour by EVERY recording artist going forward is a HUGE 'cash grab.' i hope the minimum ticket price for ANY show is $100.

how's that for the ultimate FU to the cheap, hipster scum who populate this site?

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 11:24 AM

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease play a nyc show

i love you

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 11:46 AM

"LOL, are people here really arguing over who "understands" Bowie more?"

Take a look at the site that you're on and remind yourself of the primary demographic (as displayed by 1:11's quasi-facetious post) that the site is aimed at.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 12:49 PM

I took a course at New School about David Bowie, so, obviously, I understand him since my professor gave me an A. I also wrote a seminar paper once that was a Marxist critique of the Rolling Stones appropriating the musics of African Americans and charging unreasonably high ticket prices since 1971 (when their cultural relevance was declining). Got an A on that too even though we aren't competitive about grades at New School. If any of you have any questions about David Bowie and/or the Rolling Stones, I would be more than happy to answer them. Thank you.

Posted by Too Cool For New School | January 16, 2013 2:01 PM

^ Obviously had to give the professor a blow job to get that A.

Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2013 6:47 PM

Tony Visconti said David Bowie just blew his nose.

Posted by Anonymous | January 17, 2013 9:30 PM

It would be nice if david played.

Posted by catering winnipeg | June 30, 2013 6:01 PM

Have been a massive fan since the time I was in my mum's womb. Bowie is simply... sigh... There are no words to describe such a man. I even sometimes wonder if he really belongs to this planet. He's beyond everything on earth.

Posted by Parisi | September 12, 2014 3:21 PM

Leave a Comment