Talk:Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song)

Another take on the song

Some will say that the story behind the song "Ashes to Ashes" is one of swearing off the song Space Oddity. The line "My mother said to get things done you better not mess with Major Tom" alludes to how he has overplayed the song and if he's going to make artistic advancements then he will drop the song. Also the line "Time and again I tell myself, I'll stay clean tonight, But the little green wheels are following me" says that he keeps telling himself the he will stop playing it but has become a slave of the song. This coincides with the drug addiction theme as well saying that he has become a slave of the song just as he has become a slave to his drugs. And with that he says, "Now I'm happy, hope you’re happy too". It was around this time that the song was dropped from setlists and not picked up until the Sound and Vision Tour (this is unconfirmed). Though the song hasn’t been played since Bowie's 50th Birthday Concert at Madison Square Garden and that in itself was a rare event.

Re: Live performances

Argh, the dodgy English threw me off... Nevermind.

Tom Prankerd 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Background singing in first verse

Towards the end of the first verse there are different lyrics being sung in the background. They go something like 'Songs that please the earth but leave the mind blown.....<something>...since 1974'.

Any ideas, anyone? Martyn Smith 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Although we can't use Songfacts as a reference, a couple of the commentators there have come up with some convincing suggestions. This is at the "I ain't got no money and I ain't got no hair" part; most of the background vocals are just repeats of the foreground, but it ends with songs that please the ear and leave the mind alone" or "leave the mind blown" depending on who you believe. When Bowie plays the song live nowadays that part of the arrangement is taken out, and the backing vocalists don't try to imitate it. I suspect the only person who could possibly answer this would be David Bowie himself. Is he on Wikipedia? Does he remember 1980? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Flashes of other Bowie songs?

I've always thought that the video contains references to a lot of other Bowie songs, on top of the Major Tom sub-text that we all know about. There's one shot of Bowie sinking and looking worried ("Quicksand"?) and then there's my mother, my dog and clowns ("Life on Mars"). There are others no doubt. Did I dream it? BaseTurnComplete 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes disambiguation page?

This page regarding Bowie also points in the direction of two other links about 'Ashes to Ashes'. There's likely to be a spin-off from BBC's Life On Mars also called Ashes To Ashes. Just givig a heads up that a disambiguation page may be required sometime soon.

Sampled in another track

Ashes to Ashes' intro was sampled in a fairly recent pop song performed by a female singer or group... I can't remember what this song was called, however. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.92.13 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Most Expensive Video?

This article states: "With production costing £250,000, it was at the time the most expensive music video ever made and remains one of the most expensive of all time." The reference cited is from 1999 so is quite dated. Some sites state that several videos today (20 years later) get into the "seven figure" range every year, so suspect this article's claim is probably not even remotely true anymore. Actually, having just watched this video, it seems quite crude by today's standards.

Please sign your comments! (use 4 tilde's). £250k in 1980 Monday is over £1m in today's currency, so it's certainly a worthy amount. I think a few things would help here: 1) we should clearly label when that statement was made, to give it context, and 2) maybe if there's a list on Wikipedia of "most expensive videos ever made" we could add a link to that at the bottom of the article, so interested readers could do more research if they saw fit. Anything is just opinion or conjecture. 87Fan (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See List_of_most_expensive_music_videos which sheds some light. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AshesToAshes3.jpg

Image:AshesToAshes3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you play this song (from a vinyl LP) at 45 rpm, it has a raggae beat. So, basically its a slowed down raggae song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.155.3 (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) The Scary Monsters album was demoed in Jamaica. So you may have something there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.43.134 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Coopted iconography

I've added a section on the borrowing of Bowie's original iconography for the TV series Ashes to Ashes. Can anybody think of a decent name for this section? I didn't called it "TV series" as I don't want to give the impression that the series is closely related to the video or the song. Graham and Pharaoh simply liked the images and borrowed them as a shorthand for the early 1980s. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a prob with the section title you've chosen, Tony, although it could also go by the generic References in Popular Culture, as that's effectively what it is - and because you've written it in prose, I don't think such a title should inspire a knee-jerk Trivia tag like many such sections do. Regardless of the section name, however, can you add a citation re. the inspiration the writers took? At the moment it's the only section without a source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've provided the citations. If more popular culture references emerge, perhaps they can be merged into a single section under "popular culture." --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that'd be the way, ta. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While I like the section as written, I feel "coopted iconography" is not an appropriate title; the term "coopted" is often used in a perjorative sense and sticks out like a sore thumb in the article, IMO. Agreed tho that simply "TV series" is not helpful for the reasons given above. "Influence" would be relatively neutral, tho could fall foul of the "in popular culture" ban. --172.201.39.14 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Video

I've moved the following, added to the main article by InPartnership at 15:54, 20 May 2011, to this more appropriate spot:

I don't know where this figure of £250,000 originated from for the cost of the video. It was shot on location near Hastings for one day and a second day in the studio in Wandsworth. Facilities were provided by Ewart Television. Some of the special effects were supplied by a faulty camera channel, the effect was instantly liked and the vision engineer had to keep his foot very carefully positioned against the CCU to make sure the fault remained for long enough!

In response, the £250,000 is cited and comes from Bowie biogrpaher David Buckley, which is considered a reliable source. I agree it seems high for then and I've also seen £25,000 in another reliable source (possibly Nicholas Pegg, can't recall for sure). If a third reliable source could be found that confirmed either one of these figures then I'd be happy to use that one. Also I'd be happy to see the info about the fault-turned-effect in the article, but it'd need to be cited as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've read indicates the video was filmed on Southend-on-Sea beach, see for instance . Presumably Steve Strange would know the difference between Hastings and Southend.

References

The 'string' sound of Ashes to Ashes

Is definitely produced by a Mellotron. Played by Bowie hiself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.207.140 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inchworm - Deleted?

Why has the paragraph about Inchworm been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakpick (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609154740/http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211072610/http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/features/lastnighttv/display.var.2028798.0.Back_in_the_day_when_PC_meant_copper.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/lastnighttv/display.var.2028798.0.Back_in_the_day_when_PC_meant_copper.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

1980

I have removed the assertion that the set was featured in a 1979 parody of the song called 'Space Oddity' on the Kenny Everitt show. Firstly, the song was not even recorded until early 1980, so why would Kenny be parodying it? The public would not identify what was being parodied. Secondly, the set dates from 1980. The record was not even released until August of that year. Thirdly, the linked source no longer exists, and does not appear to have matched Wikipedia standards for citations.

(86.176.53.142 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC))

Thanks for posting about it here. I appreciate you have solid reasoning as you're right it wouldn't make much sense (SM didn't start recording until February 1980). I'll check out more of my book sources for more details. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicholas Pegg actually confirms the piece you removed as true. Part of the cell and kitchen sets apparently were developed from the Everett 1979 promo of "Oddity". As of now I'm finally working a complete overhaul of the article so I'll be sure to clear the air here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashes to Ashes (David Bowie song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

We are reunited once again; I will crack on with this tomorrow! --K. Peake 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• WP:OVERLINK of David Bowie under producers in the infobox

• Done

• Change the first sentence to mentioning it is from his 14th studio album, Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps) (1980) and move the release part to being the third sentence instead

• moved date to start the second para and the no. 1 part with it so the MV is after it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Should you really use "junkie" or rephrase it to something more appropriate for the lead?

• I agree that's probably not appropriate. Adjusted it.

• I feel the lead is out of order after the first para; shouldn't it be critical reception, then commercial, then music video and keep the current order after that?

• I think we've had discussions about this before but I've never been told there's an order you HAVE to follow with these things. In my recent FACs I've found I get oppression when I stick to the layout you've mentioned here so here I grouped both old and new reviews together so we don't have repeat info (it also doesn't help I didn't really find many initial reviews to get a good summary). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "variations on the song's themes," → "variations of the song's theme,"
• "commentators consider it one of" → "commentators have considered it one of"

• both done

• "became Bowie's second No. 1 UK single" → "became Bowie's second number one UK single" per MOS:NUM

• I normally do that but with Scary Monsters, the album has "It's No Game", split into two parts and labeled (No. 1) and (No. 2), so I've been trying to keep consistency across the song articles belonging to the album as well. If "It's No Game" wasn't mentioned I'd change it no problem but since it is (B-side of US single), I'd rather keep it consistent. If that makes zero sense I'll change it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Is "up to that point" really needed when you use upon release to start the sentence?

• I guess not.

• "later reviewers and biographers consider it" → "later reviewers and biographers have considered it"
• "particularly praising its" → "particularly praising the"

• both done

Writing and recording

Backing tracks

• Img looks good!
• "like Bowie's four previous albums," → "like Bowie's previous four albums," to avoid it being implied that this is his fifth album ever
• Pipe slapping to Slapping (guitar) per MOS:LINK2SECT
• Pipe multi-track to Multitrack recording
• "never done bad things...'"." → "never done bad things...'" per MOS:QUOTE allowing punctuation like ellipsis to end a quote

• all done

Vocals and overdubs

• "According to author Peter Doggett states that Bowie" either write according to or that the author states that

• that's a simple case of forgetting to proofread. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Bowie originally sang the title as" this is confusing since it says what he originally sang it as, then uses as for a line straight afterwards

• Does changing it to "Bowie originally sang "ashes to ashes" as" clear it up? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "[Kenny Everett 'Space Oddity'] drummer" I am confused why his name is italicised and this needn't be in [] when it's not in a quote

• It's referring to the show performance (i.e. The "Will Kenny Everett Make It to 1980?" Show); added the word Show to clarify that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Composition

Music

• Img looks good!
• The Dig! ref should be the second of the group to correspond with the genres order

• Done. I swear there used to be a gadget to fix those that completely disappeared. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Add a semi-colon instead of a comma after the genres

• Done

• Should pop music be wikilinked or is this not about the genre?

• it's referring to music as a whole but I don't see why a link couldn't hurt – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Start the arpeggio figure part as a new sentence

• lack of proofreading again, ugh – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "that "Inchworm"'s chords were" → "that the song's chords were"

• Done

• Why is F the only musical note linked?

• Think I forget to link them; done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Should you use a before the series quote of O'Leary?

• yep

Lyrics

• Shouldn't laughs be italicised on the quote box per the source even though it is in brackets?

• let's just remove it altogether – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "is oddly magnificent."" → "is oddly magnificent"." per MOS:QUOTE

• done

Analysis

• Specify which America is being referred to here

• changed to the US

• "I have a lot of" → "I have an awful lot of" per the source
• "as the artist's desire to" → "as his desire to"
• "Bowie said that "I was" → "Bowie said, "I was" if this is a full sentence; if not, place the punctuation outside quotes

• all fixed

Music video

• Img looks good!
• "and remains one" would it be better to write "and has remained one" or at least add the year this is reporting from?

• fixed

• "and employ it" → "and employ the vehicle" to avoid overusage of it
• "of the next scene."" → "of the next scene"." per MOS:QUOTE

• both done

• Maybe you should only write that they were members of London's Blitz since the term nightclub is used straight after in the description?

• Valid point, fixed

• "in the bulldozer. "That's" → "in the bulldozer: "That's"
• "whose affiliation with Bowie" → "whose affiliation with the singer"

• both done

• Quote box looks good!
• "Pegg and Buckley interpret" → "Pegg and Buckley interpret that"

• done

Release

• Swap this with the music video section for a better order

• I mainly ordered it this way for chronological purposes (since it was shot immediately after recording folded and over three months before release), but there's no point in fighting over that so done. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "RCA stressed the relationship" maybe emphasized would be better than stressed?

• done. The source actually uses the word stressed so that's awkward. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Pipe 12" vinyl to Twelve-inch single
• "in America titled" → "in the US titled"

• done

• "On the album, released on 12 September," → "On Scary Monsters, released on 12 September 1980,"

• we don't need to say 1980 again since it's made clear at the start. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Commercial performance

• "Debuting at No. 4 on" → "Debuting at number four on" per MOS:NUM
• "reaching No. 79 on" → "reaching number 79 on"
• "and No. 101 on" → "and number 101 on"
• "at No. 3 in" → "at number 3 in"
• "also reached No. 14" → "also reached number 14"

• see reasons above for using No. instead of number – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Critical reception

• Remove pipe on Billboard

• done

• Either identify the Billboard reviewer as a writer or the staff

• writer; the magazine made it literally impossible to find who reviewed what; super annoying – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "called it a" → "called the song a"
• "to see the song" → "to see it"
• "finding it "not in" → "finding the song "not in"
• "while NME ranked it" → "while NME ranked the song"

• all done

Live performances

• Wikilink live album
• Wikilink BBC Radio Theatre to itself
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on Dublin

• all done

Influence and legacy

• Why is Rhino Entertainment italicised?

• Thought it was supposed to be. Awkward. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "with its "omnibus clash" → "with its "ominous clash" per the source

• typo

• "midway through the book."" → "midway through the book"." per MOS:QUOTE

• question about this sentence: do you get what he's saying? I thought it was worthy enough to include and kind of get what he's saying but as an outside individual do you think it makes sense? If not, we can remove it. Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "doubting lyrics – is perfect."" → "doubting lyrics – is perfect"." per above
• "even considered it one of" → "even considered the track one of"
• "also included "Ashes to Ashes"'s video in" → "also included the visual in"
• "Pegg argues it" → "Pegg argues the visual"
• "while Heller contends it" → "while Heller contended it"
• ""Chorus" (1991), Marilyn Manson's" → ""Chorus" (1991) and Marilyn Manson's"

• above six done

• Any update on the spacesuit now that we are in 2023?

• Nope, nothing – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Rumours of an extended unreleased version" this sentence never gets to the point about these rumours

• fixed

• Remove (no order) since this is the first one listed so does not need it in brackets
• Digital Spy should not be italicised
• Add the release years of the last two songs in brackets

• above three done

Personnel

• Good

Charts

• Fix the name for the Bubbling Under Hot 100 and why is a different position listed here then in prose?

• definitely a typo on my part, whoops

• Pipe Disco Top 100 to Dance Club Songs

• done, I also fixed the source to Billboard website

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio score looks much too high at 62.7%; cut down quoting from ref 8 to fix this

• I believe that it because of the lyric quotations.

• Cite CMJ as publisher instead on ref 12

• done and added the proper journal (CMJ New Music Report) and the missing page number – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Wikilink Dig! on ref 13
• Pipe Nielsen Business Media, Inc. to Nielsen Holdings on ref 28
• WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on ref 55
• Cite Rhino Entertainment as publisher instead on ref 57

• above four done

• I have my doubts about refs 63 and 82 for the websites they are being cited via

• I don't have an alternative for 63 so we're just gonna remove it entirely. As for 82, I remove the url but unfortunately don't have page numbers available (I know it's on there because I've seen photos but I haven't been able to find the entire issue free online (annoyingly)) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:RSP, ref 64 could be replaced or at least attribute this to TMZ

• attributed it

• Ref 73 is citing the incorrect archive-url

• oh yeah. The date even says 2010 so idk how I missed that. Fixed

• Cite Digital Spy as publisher instead on ref 77
• Wikilink Ultimate Classic Rock on ref 83

• both done

Sources

• Pipe Titan Books to Titan Publishing Group

• done

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; nice job on this one and I'll review another soon! --K. Peake 12:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kyle Peake Thanks for reviewing Kyle. I have some points above that need addressing. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Zmbro I see no issues left, apart from that the TMZ sentence should be reworded in a way that makes it clear 2022 was in the past and shouldn't you cut down on quoting of direct lyrics for copyvio? --K. Peake 07:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kyle Peake I've done some trimming of quotes and the TMZ thing as there's no point to have it. I found the copyvio detector has a problem with the "When I originally wrote about Major Tom" quote (it's from the NME interview but also included in the NPR source). The NPR thing also tags other things like the album title and such. What do you think should be the solution here? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Zmbro ✓ Pass now, it is fine when the copyvio coincidentally matches! --K. Peake 09:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the music video for David Bowie's "Ashes to Ashes" was, at a cost of £250,000, the most expensive made at the time? Source: Buckley, David (2005) [1999]. Strange Fascination – David Bowie: The Definitive Story. London: Virgin Books. ISBN 978-0-75351-002-5. pp. 316–317
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Self-nominated at 15:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC).

Length and promotion date verified; however the Rolling Stone article cited as the source only supports the budget figure and says nothing about it being the most expensive video ever made at the time.

Also, you don't need to repeat the phrase "music video", so I edited the hook appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case, Ah that's on me. I forgot it didn't (but I should've known better based on its placement in the prose). I've replaced it with a book source that I know for a fact gives both the budget and the most expensive claim. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Accepted in GF. Just one more thing ... since the hook fact is stated in the intro, could you put the cite there as well? (At least through the time it's on the Main Page) Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect release date

The release date is incorrect; as is the one for Scary Monsters, and many other releases for Bowie and other music entries. In the 1980s, new singles and were still released on a Monday. Given that my school diary notes A to A entering the charts on Sunday 10th at no. 4, I reckon it was possibly released on Monday 4th. My only doubt is that the first (and last) Monday in August are Bank Holidays and back in 1980, possibly the record shops were closed. In which case, it would've been Tuesday 5th. I can't remember when the UK moved to Friday for new releases. Sometime 2010s I think. Ck6776kc (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We go by what is stated by reliable sources. Multiple trusted Bowie sources (Chris O'Leary, Benoit Clerc, and I believe Nicholas Pegg) all state "AtA"'s release date was August 1 so that's why that date is listed. I'm not from the UK so I've been unaware of "bank holidays" and the like but it seems when it comes to release dates that did not matter. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In this instance reliable sources would be Bowie's official website (who have changed release date around constantly i.e. Ziggy) or biographies. And maybe BMI. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)