Forgotten Legacies

I try to not get irritated about too many things. In fact, not one person has prolonged one’s life by being anxious or irritated or mad on the internet about things. I do, however, occasionally make an exception.

Once upon a time in high school, I had some friends over to my place. Believe it or not, I had Depeche Mode in the CD player. Perhaps more surprisingly, it was their Exciter album. Yeah - I dared listen to such an “awful” record in the presence of other actual people! Still do, actually. It’s much better than most people give it credit for.

But this is not about Exciter. It’s about what I believe is a great disservice to a number of incredible bands who happened to get their starts in the 80s: the “80s band” moniker. That fateful day, someone in the group asked who we were listening to (with a slightly disgusted tone), and another of my acquaintances explained that it was Depeche Mode, an “80s band”.

My irritation level went off the charts and I went into hyper-explaining mode. I explained that Depeche Mode’s peak of popularity actually happened in the early 90s (from 1990s Violator through 1993’s Songs of Faith and Devotion). And by the end of the 90s they had also released 1997’s Ultra, while not to the heights of Violator or Songs… it was successful in its own right.

Depeche Mode are not even close to the only band who get this treatment. I’ve heard it with New Order, A-Ha, OMD, and plenty of other acts who happened to start out in the 80s but who also continued releasing albums and touring well into the 90s and beyond.

Notice a trend among that group? They are all electronic-based bands. Usually they were somewhat underground, their popularity not quite breaking all the way through to the mainstream. And every one of them evolved with time, not sticking to the same cheesy 80s production they all started with, but creating new ways of making sounds. And overall, they maintained success better than many of the more mainstream contemporaries of the 80s because they continued to push forward rather than choosing to chase the same old sounds.

So this is a challenge - stop thinking of acts in terms of the decade when they started. We don’t refer to the Beatles as a “60s band” or Led Zeppelin as a “70s band”. They’re rock bands. Decades are not genres. Look deeper. Acknowledge that artists and bands are allowed to evolve beyond their initial output (think if Depeche Mode churned out clones of “Just Can’t Get Enough” for the entirety of the 80s!).

Say it with me: DECADES ARE NOT GENRES!!

And then enjoy New Order’s “Crystal”, from definitely-not-80s but 2001’s Get Ready:

So when I say things like “I made this song in the vein of a band from the 80s who still makes music today”, there’s a great example of what I mean. Listen to “Crystal” compared to “Blue Monday”. Same band, vastly different time periods, completely different results, but both decidedly New Order.

Say it again! DECADES ARE NOT GENRES!

Thanks for allowing me to rant for a moment. If you enjoyed it, please consider subscribing.