We were best friends in the 60s and though we've lost touch, love survives mere time. I've read some fabulous reviews for this and Tommy says it's well worth hearing. I alerted Tom because he loves Animal Collective (I can't stand them) and Scott revealed he loves them too; clearly warrants a listen. Tom's fuller review in due course.

Tommy's more detailed review...


It is clear from the offset that this album is definitely "art". It's not made to be listened to casually, and it's not made to be 'enjoyed' in any traditional visceral, immediate sense. This is a man using music for another purpose, one that people have never gelled with particularly well.

This album is deeply uncomfortable to listen to. It's hard to listen to. It's not fun. But it's fascinating, eye-opening, and revelatory. It is full of arcane language, jargon and slang that no one person could understand effortlessly. It reminds me of Finnegan's Wake; it's a near-indecipherable mess, but if you take the time and expend the effort to decipher it, (a process which I am only just beginning) you are gradually rewarded with stunning portraits of the near-indecipherable mess that surrounds us every day in the real world.

Yes JK, but is it a hit ??

ps I've listened to it once through and it's a thrilling work.

My answer David, without hearing it but reading the very extreme mixed reviews (Guardian hated it; Sunday Times adored it) I'd say Yes, it IS a hit.

Hits don't all sound the same.

JK2006 wrote:


Hits don't all sound the same.

They do these days!

JK2006 wrote:
My answer David, without hearing it but reading the very extreme mixed reviews (Guardian hated it; Sunday Times adored it) I'd say Yes, it IS a hit.

Hits don't all sound the same.

How can you possibly say something is a hit when you haven't heard it and the reviews were mixed and the artist doesn't automatically chart with every release.

Hits do not all sound the same and that is why it is a good idea to listen to a song before passing judgement.

Certainly it's a good idea to listen but seeing the signs is an equally essential ingredient in knowing if something is a hit; I've often been convinced (ears) something is a hit but seen enough signs from others that it's not. That's why so many majors have gone bust; they don't know when to drop their priorities and cannot understand when something that sounds like a flop (Gangnam Style) becomes a hit.

From the signs, Bish Bosch looks like a hit.

The last I saw of Scott Walker he was in a darkened studio slapping the greased-up carcass of a dead pig. I didn't know whether it was a recording session or another one of those Heston Blumenthal programmes. Dear little Scottie has a lovely baritone. He keeps him in a cupboard and brings him out once a year - much like the Germans do with Freddie Frinton - when the nut selection arrives for Christmas. I'm not sure about the hit potential of this latest record as I've already heard it. Obviously I hope it does very well indeed, but until he makes The One Show I'll reserve judgement.

Ah, Scott...I have heard Bish Bosch, twice. And on the second listening, just about all the seemingly incoherent spots seemed to magically pull themselves together. And the more arcane references steadily became more intelligible. I wonder how he does it.

(Plus, for an American of a certain age, parts of it bring back delightful memories. Like his skillful deployment of "inka dinka doo" on one track. I thought Jimmy Durante-isms were a universally known language, but I read one review which wondered why Scott, in using that phrase, was introducing a "football reference." What was meant by that, I don't know.)

Scott was just interviewed by Jarvis Cocker on the radio () and, as different as he looks now from the golden boy of 1966, when speaking he sounds just the same as ever.

(As for the other Walkers - as shown at one clip at YouTube, John Maus, even during his final performance a few weeks before his death last year, still looked much as he did in the '60s, albeit a tad craggier and more weatherbeaten. Gary, as recent photos abundantly show, looks nothing like he did in the Walkers days. I get the feeling he has to spend a lot of time at pubs persuading people that they used to watch him on RSG. And speaking of which....JK, can the deepest and darkest Walkers secret finally be unveiled? By which I mean, did Gary really wear a hairpiece back then?)

The man should use his popular singing voice. He ought to perform for people who shelled out their hard-earned which has allowed him the total luxury of being creative for a living.

He's abusing his gift and depriving these audiences of what they would love to hear.

Notcyrilshane wrote:
The man should use his popular singing voice. He ought to perform for people who shelled out their hard-earned which has allowed him the total luxury of being creative for a living.

He's abusing his gift and depriving these audiences of what they would love to hear.

I'd love to hear Scott actually "singing" again too, but the work he's doing now is genuinely jaw-dropping stuff, definitively "not for everyone", but really expanding the vocabulary of what "music" actually is...

I also think it's significant that he's doing a lot of press for this new record (more than anything he's done since the mid-70's I'd say), and the label has also obviously gotten behind it, even producing a video for the song "Epizootics!" (worth YouTube-ing), so it would be great to see it pay off and become at least a cult hit...