New Wave Outpost Forum

I don't know why but I really can't get into all of the come back albums that have been released in the past few years by our New Wave heroes. Like the Duran Duran and Tears For Fears new stuff, it just does doing anything for me. What's even worse is the solo releases from Dave Gahan and Martin Gore. Geez, what are they thinking. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather some of these bands not try to do a come back because I just have a horrible image of some of the bands now.

I agree. I picked up the second Martin Gore solo CD a little over a year ago and I ended up tossing it. Considering that it was a collection of cover tunes, it was pretty bad stuff (my opinion, of course). Culture Club reunited back in 1997 and did manage to release a great new single titled "I Just Wanna Be Loved" which failled to chart here in the US, but became a huge hit in England. Apart from that, most "comebacks" from bands that were popular in the 80s don't do it for me either. Some failrly recent examples of bands that should have stayed disbanded are The Go-Go's and Tears For Fears. Not surprisngly, both records flopped miserably. The reality is that musical styles change, and most of the bands that aim for a comeback have a hard time adapting to the current trends. And apart from diehard fans, I very much doubt that the young CD-buying public will shell out money for a new Tears For Fear record when they basically view them as an oldies act.

Most are crap but Mission Of Burma's comeback cd kicks some serious ass.

[quote][i]Originally posted by MartiniHoudini[/i]
<br>I agree. I picked up the second Martin Gore solo CD a little over a year ago and I ended up tossing it. Considering that it was a collection of cover tunes, it was pretty bad stuff (my opinion, of course). Culture Club reunited back in 1997 and did manage to release a great new single titled "I Just Wanna Be Loved" which failled to chart here in the US, but became a huge hit in England. Apart from that, most "comebacks" from bands that were popular in the 80s don't do it for me either. Some failrly recent examples of bands that should have stayed disbanded are The Go-Go's and Tears For Fears. Not surprisngly, both records flopped miserably. The reality is that musical styles change, and most of the bands that aim for a comeback have a hard time adapting to the current trends. And apart from diehard fans, I very much doubt that the young CD-buying public will shell out money for a new Tears For Fear record when they basically view them as an oldies act.
[/quote]

I disagree with the Tears For Fears comment. Their latest release is a pop marvel at least. The problem is not that they didn;t put out a good release, actually it is brilliant, perfect pop. The problem is, radio today could care less. Now, should they change their name to MC TFF, or Ja Tears, or Dre For Fear, add some rap, some aggressive lyrics about rape and killing, and change up the melodies to a repetitive zero talent beat, they'd impress and be big hits. How dare they put out a full CD of lush pop tunes, those bastard losers. Homey gon' cap dem bitches.

[quote][i]Originally posted by Grunch[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by MartiniHoudini[/i]
<br>I agree. I picked up the second Martin Gore solo CD a little over a year ago and I ended up tossing it. Considering that it was a collection of cover tunes, it was pretty bad stuff (my opinion, of course). Culture Club reunited back in 1997 and did manage to release a great new single titled "I Just Wanna Be Loved" which failled to chart here in the US, but became a huge hit in England. Apart from that, most "comebacks" from bands that were popular in the 80s don't do it for me either. Some failrly recent examples of bands that should have stayed disbanded are The Go-Go's and Tears For Fears. Not surprisngly, both records flopped miserably. The reality is that musical styles change, and most of the bands that aim for a comeback have a hard time adapting to the current trends. And apart from diehard fans, I very much doubt that the young CD-buying public will shell out money for a new Tears For Fear record when they basically view them as an oldies act.
[/quote]

I disagree with the Tears For Fears comment. Their latest release is a pop marvel at least. The problem is not that they didn;t put out a good release, actually it is brilliant, perfect pop. The problem is, radio today could care less. Now, should they change their name to MC TFF, or Ja Tears, or Dre For Fear, add some rap, some aggressive lyrics about rape and killing, and change up the melodies to a repetitive zero talent beat, they'd impress and be big hits. How dare they put out a full CD of lush pop tunes, those bastard losers. Homey gon' cap dem bitches.
[/quote]

TEARZ FA' FEARZ, Yo'get it right, ya dig?

[quote][i]Originally posted by devildog[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by Grunch[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by MartiniHoudini[/i]
<br>I agree. I picked up the second Martin Gore solo CD a little over a year ago and I ended up tossing it. Considering that it was a collection of cover tunes, it was pretty bad stuff (my opinion, of course). Culture Club reunited back in 1997 and did manage to release a great new single titled "I Just Wanna Be Loved" which failled to chart here in the US, but became a huge hit in England. Apart from that, most "comebacks" from bands that were popular in the 80s don't do it for me either. Some failrly recent examples of bands that should have stayed disbanded are The Go-Go's and Tears For Fears. Not surprisngly, both records flopped miserably. The reality is that musical styles change, and most of the bands that aim for a comeback have a hard time adapting to the current trends. And apart from diehard fans, I very much doubt that the young CD-buying public will shell out money for a new Tears For Fear record when they basically view them as an oldies act.
[/quote]

I disagree with the Tears For Fears comment. Their latest release is a pop marvel at least. The problem is not that they didn;t put out a good release, actually it is brilliant, perfect pop. The problem is, radio today could care less. Now, should they change their name to MC TFF, or Ja Tears, or Dre For Fear, add some rap, some aggressive lyrics about rape and killing, and change up the melodies to a repetitive zero talent beat, they'd impress and be big hits. How dare they put out a full CD of lush pop tunes, those bastard losers. Homey gon' cap dem bitches.
[/quote]

TEARZ FA' FEARZ, Yo'get it right, ya dig?
[/quote]

They'll have to remake Shout and call it HOLLA!

[quote][i]Originally posted by MartiniHoudini[/i]
<br> [b]The reality is that musical styles change, and most of the bands that aim for a comeback have a hard time adapting to the current trends.[/b] And apart from diehard fans, I very much doubt that the young CD-buying public will shell out money for a new Tears For Fear record when they basically view them as an oldies act.
[/quote]

True dat.
The biggest CD-buying demographic are teens and young folks, and they are unlikely to buy new TFF or DD or GoGos b/c they regard them as "oldies" acts. One of my students told me that his Mom used to be into Duran Duran and therefore, that was a turn-off to him in terms of buying their new CD. Some teens/young people totally get into older music, for sure, but they are in the minority.

Hate to admit it, but I'd much rather hear these new bands (Interpol, Franz, etc) 'back-date' their sound than hear our old bands 'up-date' their sound.

I'd like to hear the reformed Duran Duran (and the others) put out a new album of songs using the same instruments, same keyboard sounds, same production values, etc etc that they used circa '82 - - show the newbies how it's done.

That's what they should do, stick to what they do best. Show all the kids why they were so popular at one time and why so many bands try to imitate them. You know, DD did a great job on their first come back about 10 years ago with songs like "Come Undone" and "Ordinary World". I liked those songs almost immediately and they are still cherished. Depeche Mode should also go back to what they do best. They are not a rock or country band, they are a NEW WAVE band. They should recognize all of the synthpop bands that idolize them and prove to them why they are the synth gods.

bpdp3 & Sean,

I totally agree. "Come back" with the same exact stuff you excelled at. I bet the record companies are the bad guys here. They probably don't want to put out the "same old stuff".


KYYX - I just ended a sentence with "at"! [:I]

Har har, you guys!

Here I am, getting ready to grade a batch of essays because the students are testing ( the Testing never ends under this No Child Left Behind crap!), so grammar is on my mind this morning.

OK, if you really must know, if this is truly bugging you ([:)]), the correct form is " 'come back' with the same stuff at which you excelled." LOL![:p]

i don't know if i agree with any of you all!

an artist changes and evolves, and tries new things. sometimes this experimentation hits the mark, and sometimes it misses. but how many bands fall out of favor because they DON'T change their sound? most! one of the reasons we don't hear any of that horrid kiddie-pop crap from the late 90's is because there was no adaptation or evolution there...but justin timberlake goes off and tries his hand at retro r&b and scores a smash hit. thank god he experimented. (i'm not saying it's a masterpiece, but look at the business other boy band solo cd's did. nothing.) he took a chance and his audience went with him, and embraced his new direction. but how many artists get dumped for trying the same thing?

either way you are screwed: you either manage to try new things, incorporating current styles or cutting edge technology (see: u2's "achtung baby") and drag your fans into the next century, or you dabble in current trends (prince raps on every album since "diamonds and pearls"- miserably) half-assedly and lose your casual fan-base.

i don't understand why people are so hot to call things "comebacks." if an artist is primarily concerned with making money, okay. one does need a "comeback" to generate more cash. but artists like dave gahan aren't hurting at all for money, and do their solo albums as experiments or expressions of who they are right then. that can't be crassly called a "comeback." that's a "creation." it *shouldn't* sound like the same old shit, otherwise just make another band album.

let's look at duran duran. their so-called "comeback" album, the "wedding album," sounds nothing like their glory days of "rio" and "ragged tiger." the two hits were, for them, fresh new styles to try. the listening public responded, and the cd was a huge hit, sustaining them a few more albums until the ever-fickle public lost interest again. the songwriting on "medazzaland" and "pop trash" is in places pretty stellar, so it's not like they can't write good songs anymore. it's just that nobody cares if they evolve anymore (another example of this is the new tears for fears: excellent songs. excellent production. dismal promotion and support).

and yet, fans are going apeshit for the new duran duran, that it's a return to the old sound, old lineup, etc. and i approached it with caution. sure enough, it's hollow, plastic, sub-par writing. gimmicky, and ultimately boring. this is what everyone wanted from them? really? personally, i thought the last two depeche mode albums were artistically pretty great, and didn't sound like "some great reward," thankfully. so wishing that duran duran would record an entire album using their old equipment and old technology? just pathetic. and i guarantee the result would be horrible. they are in their mid 40's now; it would be the equivalent of a middle-aged man buying a red convertible, trolling the streets for "pussy", his grey comb-over flapping in the breeze! just sad, and stomach churning. if you want *that* album build a time machine and go back in time and fight the sleestaks while you are at it.

there is no recapturing that magic, we aren't 15 anymore. sure "astronaut" has sold well, but isn't that more due to ageing generation x-ers, stuck in some sort of nostalgia-fueled desperation? i mean, those feelings also make one wistfully recall high school friends one hasn't seen in 20 years and hunt them down on the internet. only to discover they are religious home-schoolers with two suv's. ugh, just move on.

i felt bad for tears for fears, their last album was really good. but why would i want (or even demand) "the hurting" part 2? just listen to first cd, and have happy memories. that's a lot to ask of a musician: "keep churning out the same old sound, as i don't want to try new music and new bands and i want you to keep doing the kind of music i lost my virginity to."

of course, there are missteps, experiments go wrong (lou reed? neil young? prince?) and of course people make self-indulgent pap (bowie? bjork?) masquerading as "artistic growth." but i'd rather see an artist try something new and not rake in the cash then have to see someone like joe jackson do a "night and day 2" because supposedly "that's what the fans want." marianne faithfull has a great career, and she's not been tempted to do a "broken english 2"... thank god.

i don't even know what the point of this post was anymore! [:)]

I think the new Duran Duran album, [i]Astronaut[/i] is excellent. Also disagree that it "doesn't sound like their old material"...I think it sounds quite similar in places, but there has been real growth (not the self indulgent pap kind of growth). All the harmonies, baselines, synth soundscapes are there, but we have some new style and energy.

[i]Astronaut[/i] doesn't sound like a ripoff of [i]Rio[/i], it sounds like the same band that has evolved through 20+ years worth of time.

Personally, I thought [i]Astronaut[/i] sounded a lot more like the old stuff than did [i]The Wedding Album[/i] (which I also enjoy). When I heard [i]The Wedding Album[/i], I thought "Duran Duran's changed their sound!" When I heard [i]Astronaut[/i], I thought "Duran Duran's back!"

I feel the excellent sales of [i]Astronaut[/i] shows that people are responding to this energy and sense of purpose. These guys aren't coming back for another kick at the can for a few more bucks. They are producing real, enjoyable and original music. The public (young and old) still responds to that somewhat. And I do know several teens who bought [i]Astronaut[/i] and aren't embarrassed to say so. many teens like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones (two bands which are inferior to DD in my mind), even though their mothers/fathers/grandparents also like them. Just because one generation thinks a band is cool, that doesn't mean younger generations will shun them. Look at the Beatles.

So, what I'm really saying is this: judge each "comeback" on its own merit. Don't automatically buy them, don't automatically avoid them. And maybe, just maybe, the ones that don't sell well don't deserve to!

Marc

I recently purchased "Bigger than America" by Heaven 17, their 1996 "comeback" album. I have to say, even though the production value and synth sound have been updated, it's a very good album, and I would even go so far that as an album on a whole, is better than their two previous studio releases. Glenn Gregory's vocals are as good as ever on this disc, and maybe some time away has done their songwriting some good as well. I never got the feel from listening to the CD that they got back together just for the sake of making a comeback album (I believe they all still worked on projects together here and there), I would hope it's because they had some good music here and wanted to get it out there. I believe they released another disc of new music recently, and I'm all too willing to check it out based on the strength of this one.

lol @ kimiiii & the Teacher !!