Not to sound like a Jewish bubby, but it's like butter! So smooth! So rich and subtly emotive! I could listen to him day-in and day-out. I could listen to him sing the phone book. Too bad he was a junky. And he's starting to look pretty old.
What brings this to mind is that I bought
Playing the Angel yesterday. I'm pretty happy with it after two listenings. I heard "Precious" on Smallville and was utterly transfixed! Depeche Mode was back in form! I heard
Songs of Faith and Devotion when it was released and was not happy with it. It was just not like
Violator, one of my favorite albums ever, so I haven't really paid attention to them since then. Well, I heard "Precious" and thought `Wow! That's as good as anything they've ever done!` So far I would rate
Playing the Angel as equal to
Music for the Masses. I dont think it's as good as
Violator. Every song on that album really worked for me, but several of the songs on this one just don't grab me like they could. Each of the songs on
Violator was great by itself plus they all fit together so well. It was an integrated, self-coherent work. I don't get that feeling from
Playing the Angel. Some of the songs feel over decorated to me; Baroque one might say. [Leann Rimes suffered horribly from overproduction like this. Her old man put everything but accordian and bagpipes every place he could in every one of her songs.] Some of the songs could have benefitted from being pared back a bit. I'm still happy with it.
It's interesting that two of the bands who were my favorites as a teenager are re-ascending in my estimation. That would be Depeche Mode and U2. I really discovered Depeche Mode when they released
Violator and U2 with
The Joshua Tree. I consider each of these albums to be the respective band's master work. U2's recent stuff is apealing more to me again also, but I don't get the feeling that they're returning to the quality of work that they did in the
Unforgettable Fire and
Joshua Tree era. I feel that is when they peaked. I don't think that their lives as they are now can produce the quality of lyrics that they once did. I don't think Bono can write something as good as "Where the Streets Have no Names" right now, because he isn't in that frame of mind. His perception of reality must be colored by his success and the interactions he has [Too many yes men?]. U2 are probably the best musicians, the most skilled and talented players in popular music today, but the lyrics I've heard don't resonate with me like their older stuff.
Now maybe a large portion of this is my own mental state. I'm not in the same place as when I was fourteen/fifteen/sixteen/seventeen. Maybe it was just the nexus of that music and myself at that time that worked together. While the music has been preserved in plastic and digital bits, who I was at that time has not. I find that
the Joshua Tree doesn't stand up as well for me now as back then. I feel like some of the songs, "One Tree Hill" for instance, while good, just aren't as satisfying. It's still a great album with great songs, but it doesn't resonate in my soul like it once did.
Violator has withstood the years for me though. Each song from it that I hear still resonates, echos inside me. I still must wonder if, had I discovered Depeche Mode shortly after the release of
Music for the Masses, would I have thought
Violator not up to par when it was released? I'm not sure, but I actually doubt it. Each of these albums,
Violator and
the Joshua Tree, marks the summit of each band's career, the moment when they truly achieved "Top 40 Rock Star" status. Their lives changed in measureable ways. The music a superstar writes will necessarily be different than the music an unknown or rising star writes.
So why are Depeche Mode reascendant to me and U2 aren't as much so? U2 never really faded after
the Joshua Tree. Depeche Mode faded to semi-obscurity for a while. U2 had top ten hits and did songs for big movie sound tracks. Bono pushed social causes. U2 marketed themselves very well while Depeche Mode's star faded. Since DM faded, they had a chance to regenerate, to gather a good amount of stored up ideas, which U2 hasn't really had the chance to do. As soon as U2 has something, anything to say, they let it out and the fawning sycophants at eMpTyV suck it up like it's the best thing ever. Now this does highlight U2's natural talent. A band that was not extraordinarily talented couldn't maintain superstar status in the way U2 does, but because everything they do is constantly treated as the best thing ever, they don't get a chance to really create and polish something truly wonderful.
The Cure is another band that I thought the world of then, and I doubt they'll ever make another album that really appeals to me now. After
Disintegration I never really liked any of the albums I heard. They had some good songs, but they just are too intellectually thin. I love Robert Smith, he's a talented musician and song writer, but his songs are too unsatisfying, for lack of a better way to say it. Thinking of the stuff he writes, most of it seems like the expression of a silly self-absorbed adolescent. Interesting at first, but it wears thin too quickly. When I was a self-absorbed adolescent, I dould identify with it much more. After I grew out of that stage, I didn't identify with his songs anymore.
Also, he doesn't have David Gahan's luscious voice.
