Okay, I don't get this one. How is this considered a total classic and the pinnacle of Bowie's career? Why is the extended  techno instrumental that wastes all of side 2 considered to be such a genius work of absolute mastery when really it's just a mix of lousy soundtrack-like material (i.e. "Subterraneans" and "Art Decade") and amateurish screwing around with a synthesizer (i.e. "A New Career in a New Town" and "Warzawa")? God, Bowie, you used to be great. Then you went all "artsy" on us. And Brian Eno (hey, that looks like "emo"! And it's "one" spelled backwards!) was kind of far away from his peaks with U2 and Talking Heads. It's like he said, "Okay, I've got a bunch of quirky synth loops, let's head to Berlin and make an album side out of it!" and Bowie was like, "Dude, I wanted to go there to kick my drug habits, so sign me up!" That's probably not even remotely how it happened, but I'm an aspiring novelist and we aspiring novelists like to embellish a lot. Anyway, there's precisely one superb song here, and it's not the annoying yet catchy hit "Sound + Vision". No, it's "Always Crashing in the Same Car", which actually does do something with the album's art-school weirdness. But it's one of the three normal songs that actually does anything (the others are "Sound + Vision" and "Breaking Glass"). Clearly, the good songs form a distinct minority. Because who needs "Be My Wife" or "What in the World"? Not me, that's for sure. Okay, maybe Bowie's rabid cult of purely obsessed fans (of which I am not part of - he's good, but not that good) do. But I think the three good songs should've been plucked out, placed with the first side (read: the "Good Side") of Heroes, and mixed with stuff from Lodger, which I haven't heard but expect is in the same vein. None of this sound collage crapola. Leave that to groups like the Talking Heads, who can actually pull that stuff off. So this is far from Bowie's best album - I'd recommend Hunky Dory, Aladdin Sane, Ziggy Stardust or Station to Station over it.