Talk:Depeche Mode/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

(giving them more charting singles without a #1 hit than any other artist)

Enjoy the Silence was a #1 hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.113.138 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it reached only #6. Garik 11 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fletch Plays Bass?

Though he is not by any means a full time bass-player in the band, Fletch plays bass in many of the 2005 live videos that have been entitled 'Bare' versions of songs, according to Playing the Angel producer Ben Hillier his bass playing has been sampled, his playing appears in the 'Useless' and 'It's No Good' videos, and he started out the band playing bass. So I think its safe to include 'bass' in the list of what he does. It NEEDS to be there to be accurate.

Also, Martin plays bass on 'Suffer Well' live and presumably on the album version as well, so I will put that in too. P.S. Plus I think they sampled some of Martin's live bass playing during the SOFAD era in songs like Walking In My Shoes & In Your Room but that is more nebulous.

--Ira-welkin 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I think that's adding a bunch of "useless" (hee hee) info. Fletch did play the bass, but this was before they were signed. And the fact that he played bass on a few "Playing the Angel" tracks and the bare versions is not enough to dub him the bands bassist. He did not play bass on any of the "Ultra" tracks. If his bass playing becomes more frequent, and/or if he starts playing bass on stage, it would make more sense. Human historian 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I think on Suffer Well you're thinking Martin's guitar playing. If you're talking about the opening riff, then yeah. It's just a very low sounding guitar. I think it's a Gibson, but I'm not too sure though.

Sorry kiddo but if you review concert footage of the TTA tour you will see martin is DEFINATLY playing a bass on 'Suffer Well.' I thought it was a guitar at first too, but as it sounds the same as the album version I now must conclude that it is a bass there too. Trust me, I don't know where a picture is right now but I will be back in a second with a link to Martin playing bass on 'Suffer Well' live. And plus I think that we are listing instruments the band members play here, it doesn't say 'keyboardist,' but 'keyboard.'

Drums are correctly listed for Alan, but he was not the band's drummer much more than Fletch played bass. But it is RELEVANT information. It lists instruments that the people HAVE played for the band.

--Ira-welkin 02:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I trust you on the bass. I just saw a video on the official site. I think Alan's drumming is more creditable, since he played them live and since much of the SOFAD is done with drums. Also they refered to him as the drummer on the EPK and other interviews. If we're listing instruments that the band has played we might as well add the melodica and the xylophone (See Everyting Counts) to the list. Human historian 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got the reference to hand (maybe an old SOFAD-era NME interview) but I do remember Dave saying he'd specifically asked Alan to learn/play live drums for SOFAD Robin Macharg 14:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and the distinction you are making makes sense. However, as this information is obviously of interest, though perhaps misleading to include in the section where it was, maybe we should make a section where all instruments that the band has been known to play or sample gets included? There we could even put a reference to which songs the instruments were used in. For example, the pedal steel slide guitar in 'The Darkest Star,' suitcases in 'Personal Jesus,' etc. We could make a 'sample and sound chart' or something. Is that something that would be worthwhile? --Ira-welkin 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds fine. Human historian 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone is clutching at short staws here, claiming that Martin and Fletch play bass. They played bass for 20 seconds on one/two tracks on what is now a lengthly portfolio; though this hardly constitutes them as bass players. However, if you must include bass, you may as well include all the other instruments they have used (extremely lightly) throughout their lengthly career ... though this would look rather silly, wouldn't it? User: Bond023

So you are saying you haven't seen the new section at the bottom and that you don't think that Suffer Well, Surrender, Clean or Nothing's Impossible is an entire song? I'm just trying to understand your position... --Ira-welkin 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have answered my question yourself ... in the great scheme of all the tracks they have done, throughout their career, it is extraneous information for the top part, so agree with the new section - nice idea.

Yes, the information is interesting and of note to fans, but misleading to include where it was. Now people will be able to get the whole story, in context. --Ira-welkin 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Fletch plays bass even more than I thought, and I bet he does it more in the future. --Ira-welkin 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, check out this pic of Martin playing bass on 'Suffer Well' live, it's pretty damn cool! http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/album118/CPcoachella252839x0030.jpg --Ira-welkin 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone still insisting on sticking Bass after Fletchers name. It was decided that sundry instruments were put in the new section at the bottom of the page

• Whoops. My apologies. --[kazikame] 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello - Again, omeone still insisting on sticking Bass after Fletchers name. It was decided that sundry instruments were put in the new section at the bottom of the page

• Not me. Not everyone reads the talk page though. I doubt this'll help. Go leave a message for whoever did it. --[kazikame] 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

People Are People (album)

AFAIK people are people is NOT an album, and definitly not one released in 1984, why does this keep re-appearing? There was a 12" single byt then there were 12" for all the singles. Please post some coroboration for this Htaccess 06:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of it, but I believe that there was a compilation album released called People are People.

=>>> http://www.discogs.com . All there! No speculating needed.

Ross-c 22:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, for $9.98 you can buy it at Amazon. It was originally released as a compilation in the US only and contains the title track along with a pair of B-sides, some Construction Time Again tracks and A Broken Frame single Leave in Silence. Perhaps something like "(US compilation)" could be amended, though. Alarm 20:49, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

Image, Happy?

Did Depeche Mode ever have "a happy image?" regimeoftruth 07:51, 10 Nov 2004

Yes. It was the disasterous early image that forever robbed them of being taken seriously by the popular British media. Songs like "The Meaning Of Love" were just too twee, and the video featuring Dave's head turning into a mince pie was laughable. sugarfish 20:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Which idiot keeps getting rid of the image above the profile? There should be one there, and some monkeybrain keeps deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.12.180 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

How about we move the information on Songs of Faith and Devotion to a new page about the album (after bringing it to a NPOV). I think that would take care of most of the organizational problems.

Acegikmo1 21:05, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

Alan Wilder's contribution

Wilder himself has stated that he contributed a lion's share of work while receiving the least credit on past albums.

While it may be true that Wilder contributed much to the production of Depeche Mode's music, it is incorrect to say that he received the least credit. All Depeche Mode releases attempt to list the band members in a different order each time. There is no implied pecking order.

--Rd707 23:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing that Depeche Mode has released since Wilder's departure disproves the notion that, whilst Gore was capable of generating excellent source material, it was Wilder that turned it into something particularly Mode-ish.

I would like to edit this to be a little more NPOV. I've been a DM fan for twenty years and I believe that their last two albums have been their best ever, so I'm left wondering what backs up this claim of the material not being "mode-ish". Perhaps a source from some prominent critic would work? Otherwise I feel it should be reworded or removed. Sylve 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A good source to that claim are reviews for Exciter on Amazon - check them out. Plenty of 1-star ratings, and 3 stars for the album on average.

I not certain if amazon.com the best source for credible fan base demographics. Amazon, like all online order companies, selects for a highly specific demographic, and there is a question of which amazon we should be checking (uk, us, japan, etc?) Regardless, Ultra, which was also released after Wilder left, got an average of 4.5 stars from customer reviews for amazon.com and 4 in the reviews for amazon.co.uk, which seem pretty high to me. Also, if Exciter was totally panned (I'm uncertain that 3.5 stars counts as being panned), that would still not support this particular assertion, which is very specific in claim that they are somehow less DM than they were before.

Other reviews, like the critics at allmusic.com, have given Exciter 4 stars, ranking it along with Songs of Faith and Devotion and Black Celebration. So I'm really not sure if this subjective commentary is entirely appropriate in several parts of the article. Obviously its good to give it a personal touch, but it might be better to tone down some of the parts that aren't particularly well supported by the data to be more neutral. Sylve 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you elaborate how is amazon's demographic highly specific? In fact, reviews at online shops are generally skewed towards positive, since buyers want to justify their spending or their die-hard fandom. There are barely any releases with one or two star ratings on the average. So three stars is a sure sign that things have gone wrong, and four stars mean there are substantial faults.

Speaking of professional critics, as far as I remember, Q magazine only gave Exciter two stars ("uninspired") - in the same issue that featured an article and interviews with the band to promote it! You may personally like Wilder-less albums, but you can't deny that too many "old-school" fans were severely let down by them (especially Exciter). The obvious explanation is that Wilder's musical direction was the key ingredient of DM's trademark sound and the article should reflect that shared opinion in some way. --62.78.255.126 14:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Amazon.com reviews are a skewed demographic in that they are selective of people with internet connections, and people who shop on the internet, which itself tends to be a specific demographic both worldwide and more representative of certain socio-economic groups in particular countries. But all of this is irrelevant. Regardless of the evidence for bad reviews (and good reviews), this does not necessarily support the conclusion these albums recieved bad reviews because DM is "less DM" without Wilder. Some of their CDs got bad reviews when Wilder was present, and there are lots of reasons for people to not like a CD besides the fact that Wilder didn't contribute to it. If you want to include the point of view that DM albums are no longer depeche mode without Wilder, (and we need to be clear, this is a subjective point of view not held by everyone) then please find a critic who says so explicitly and simply quote him. That way we don't have to worry about NPOV violations or "obvious" conclusions that are only obvious to some. Sylve 12:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

At http://www.side-line.com/interviews_comments.php?id=1198_0_16_0_C you can find a Dave Gahan quote where he says explicitly that "the band never had succeeded in replacing the 4th member" and that he would've liked Alan to produce his solo debut. Even better than quoting the critics :) --62.78.255.126 11:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Also midly irrelevant, Dave and Alan are good friends and there is no reason to disrespect Wilder just to prove he wasn't important. They never needed to replace the 4th member and the quote, though revealing of Gahan's appreciation of Wilder, doesn't support the original point.

We seem to have gone a wee bit off thread here people. My original comment was about the Wilder's comment that he received the LEAST credit. There is still no evidence of this.

As for whether Alan Wilder defines DM. He was neither a starting member and isn't a member now. If he was so valued why didn't the rest of the gang just pack it in when he left?

We also need to give a little less creedence to the critics. They are called critics for a reason - they're CRITICal. If everyone read and believed what critics thought of DM over the years, they'd have packed it in years ago. Anyone in doubt of DMs view of critics clearly hasn't read the 81-85 sleeve notes. It is the opinion of the fans that matters.

Speaking of which, you can't really rely on retailer reviews as representative DM opinion - you're better off using fan sites although as mentioned earlier, even that is skewed (not all fans are on internet or are members of fan sites).

Rd707 18:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mode fans are wildly polarized on the issue of their post-Wilder viability. Claims of the band's worth after his departure focus on Exciter and the dissatisfaction that these people feel with it. Ultra and Playing the Angel are seldom if ever mentioned. Though Alan contributed a lot to the band and gave it everything he had, he was not responsible for the 'Modeishness' of the band, something that the last single before Alan joined (Leave In Silence) and the first after he left (Barrel of a Gun) as well as their last three albums can attest to. --Ira-welkin 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Like most fans and critics, I disagree; the quality of DMs music took a massive turn for the worse after SOFAD. On the contrary, Alan contributed hugely to the 'Modeishness' of the music - the depth, layering and complexity. Note that, even the band themselves admit that Exciter and Ultra are poor albums. After Exciter's righfully dismal impact/sales, Dave Gahan noted that "I think Martin should call Alan to apologise". -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.101.6 (talk • contribs)

Like -most- fans? How do you know? You mean most fans like you. Ultra was number one on the charts. There are over 10 years in which every new fan became a fan in a year in which Alan was not in the band. He has never been in the band since I started liking them, and I don't think there is any less value to songs like Insight and The Darkest Star than there is to a song like Dressed In Black.

Are you saying chart success = quality? Didn't the last Steps' and Cheeky Girls' albums reach #1?

How many people worldwide bought PTA? More than bought Liquid and Unsound Methods combined I'm sure. I was never a fan while Alan was in the band, and neither were millions of other young people. Trying to promote a view held mainly by 30-year old people who thought 'Violator' was the band's heyday only because they were young, having fun and drinking at the time and view the era with nostalgia as though it is the 'correct' view is really not what wikipedia is about.

Irrelevent. We are talking about DM here, not Recoil. Again, are you saying chart success = quality? Didn't the last Steps' and Cheeky Girls' albums reach #1?

By all means, you should be allowed to present your view. But can you even imagine someone who likes Ultra, Exciter, and Playing the Angel just as much?

Agree, I can't imagine. No.

And using Dave's quotes against modern mode is silly. Why not mention all the quotes in which he gushes about how awesome he thinks Playing the Angel is? Look at it this way, he threatened alot in interviews before the recording of PTA that if he didn't write half the album, he was out of Depeche. He only got three songs on the album (awesome ones, by the way). Do you put in the article that Dave is no longer in Depeche Mode? Can you? Not really. In other interviews, the other band members say that Dave tends to speak in interviews as he does in therapy, and to take what he says with a grain of salt. Also, Martin and Alan seem to have resolved their tensions of years past. Both said rather derogatory things about each other for a phase, and that could easily be what Dave was referring to. I certainly don't think Dave feels that their last few albums have been pointless.

--Ira-welkin 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to go out more often

Okay, I've stayed out of this discussion for a while, because in my opinion, the debate is never going to go anywhere: there will always be those fans who believe the band took a turn for the worse when Alan left, and those that don't necessarily see it that way. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on the subject (and I know I have mine), but as long as we're here at Wikipedia, I think the number one focus of this discussion was originally (and should continue to be) to make sure none of that personal opinion finds its way into the main article (like the statement that Alan received the least credit; a statement whose removal is the reason this topic was created in the first place).

As a result, I've put a "citation needed" tag next the claim of Dave saying Martin should apologize to Alan...if nobody can tell or show where that quote was taken from, then it needs to be removed. John5008 | talk to me 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I recall reading this from Gahan; he mentioned this a number of times esp. his solo LP was being released. There is a citation here as well: http://www.exclaim.ca/index.asp?layid=22&csid=1&csid1=1621

Is John5008 the owner of this site?

Not keen on swearing here ... so I have taken the liberty to remove this comment. --unsigned by IP

This article is more sardonic and has very few credible facts. And it's poorly written, on top of that. To be blunt, it's a piece of sh** written by an amateur. I'm gonna have to agree with John5008. I don't doubt that Dave would say something like that, him and Alan being closer together than the other two, but it would be better to have proof. Human historian 03:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I can confirm that this is a fact.

It's the context for this fact that is questionable. Can you print that DM are broken up because Dave said that he would only stay in DM if he wrote half the new album? He only wrote a fourth of it. They are still together. Fact that. --Ira-welkin 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As a lawyer who's profession is to sort out divided opinions all the time, it seems Wikipedia should have a POV section in which there is (1) an Issue section, (2)one side presents their POV followed by (3) a Reply section, then followed (4)by a Rebuttal section. Then everyone can read all the arguments and decide for themselves. Personally, I've always wondered why my favorite DM (the 1984-1995 DM) wasn't the same after 1995 and now know why, after listening to Alan Wilders's high quality Recoil album on iTunes. Listening to Recoil was like finally having a good new DM album. Alan Wilder's contribution was totally unknown to me before I learned about this controversy on Wikipedia. I previously thought Martin Gore and Vince Clark were genius's who wrote all the good songs primarily on their own.

Welcome to the Wildernista bunch! I am a great DM fan but I think we have to admit that Martin by himself is kinda limited...I know this is unfair because there are other factors concerned but if you just check the demo harmonium version of Enjoy the Silence and the final product after Wilder's, Flood'd and Miller's input you may get a general idea of what I am talking about.

I'm not saying that Martin is not a good musician anyway, not at all and, in any case, when I started losing faith, they finally found a great producer with Ben Hillier: PTA is very good and I hope if they release a new record, he is again in production tasks. Mountolive 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

- Yep, agree with you Mountolive, Hillier has done a great job with PTA. Infinately better album than the last two. Unlike Exciter(Yawn) and Ultra (Average), At least I can see the Mode playing a couple of tracks off PTA at future gigs.

up to Black Celebration Alan had a very marginal role in depeche mode. speak&spell,a broken frame, construction time again,some great reward in production terms and sound design were mainly the work of daniel miller + gareth jones (although alan would sit with them more often than the other members learning the ropes and givin a hand- from cutting tapes to making tea). Alan then was given the keys to depeche mode sound, although always having an external producer alongside him . "the lion's share of work" refers to the violator and songs of faith and devotion albums,where yes he probably should have gotten more credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer01 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DM's sound is crap. You want proof? How about cancelled shows. You want further proof? Let's use common sense. Is there anything on the last 3 albums which surpasses singles like Personal Jesus, Enjoy the Silence and SOFAD album? You don't need to be a genius to admit that DM without Alan is just another crappy pop group. Hell even they admitted they've been using old techniques and sampling their own music in the past few albums which wasn't the case in Violator and the SOFAD era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Depeche Mode on Polish Wiki

Hi, I want to tell to us about polish article about DM. Let's see it. I don't have any photo - help me, please. Joy

Might be nice to have a phontic spelling available, I always mispronounce it. How about Dee-Pesh Mode?

Depeche mode is french and it is pronunced [deˈpeʃ mɔd]--Daniel bg 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pasadena Rose Bowl

Never sold out did it? 80,000 nothing. According to the 101 film, the paid attendance was 60,453. Never even looked like that much to me. User:Mario55

I don't know if they sold it out. The entire section behind the stage was empty (by design). What I heard on that day was the the band and KROQ ended up giving away a lot of tickets just to fill the place. Paid attendance not-withstanding, it was an amazing event.

John Todd

QUOTE: "What I heard on that day was the the band and KROQ ended up giving away a lot of tickets just to fill the place. " That is fiction unless you have a source. Keep in mind that there is a difference between capacity and the number of seats available for sale. Having attended said concert, I can assure you that the place was stuffed. There were gaps in rear of the stadium where there was obstructed viewing. This is why people shifted to other standing areas to get a better vantage point. There is a reason why Baron Kessler was happy that day (see '101' footage). The band made a Moog-full of profit off that event. But LA fans are atypical. They are a sure-bet for selling out a DM show. Not true in other areas of the US. DA Pennebaker made a point of showing the band's Memphis date. Talk about empty seats... I think they would do better nowadays. Jackbox1971 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Album Sales

Can someone tell me where they got the figure of 70 million from? It was 50 million a few months ago.

Nevermind the 70 there are two places on this page that have different quotes. One says over 70 the other say nearly 60. I think 10 million records is a HUGE difference, plus of course if it was actually 50 and not even 60 or 70.

I don’t know where they got this number (70 million). But if you to consider that in 2001, before "Exciter", Depeche Mode had already sold over 50 million and to take in account the popularity of them in some countries of the Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, where we will never know to the certainty how many copies they have sold, I would say 70 million is a modest number.

If you to be based only the official numbers, RIIA made an announcement that Garth Brooks was the best-selling solo artist of the 20th century in America. Do you believe Brooks sold more than Elvis?

that riaa list only include ALBUMS, elvis of course, sell millions and millions of singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.161.107 (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Singles Table Change

Since the singles table has become a bit scattered, with only select singles being moved from one table to a new one, I drew up my own alternate version for a singles table, but I wanted to run it by people before replacing the current table(s) with this new one. Comments, questions, concerns, and suggestions are, of course, all welcome. John5008 01:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Association with America's Gothic movement

Could someone please expand on America's gothic movement? I have a feeling this is a mistake. DM are often associated with various gothic groups of around the same time, such as the banshees, cure, JD, etc. all of whom are british. I shall drop the word america and leave it at "association with the gothic movement" and (wiki-link gothic to boot) otherwise. -- Jon Dowland 13:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Singles Table

Is there an indicator (such as an asterisk or superscript number) to highlight songs within the table that are currently charting/still climbing? As is stands now, the table indicates peak positions, and looking specifically at "Precious," the week-by-week updating of the chart movement doesn't present an accurate picture. When a number is placed into the table, it insinuates that the song has already peaked. -- eo 16:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I just added a notes section to the singles table, explaining some oddities in the chart ("Blasphemous Rumours"/"Somebody" as a double A-side, "Dangerous" and "Halo" charting despite not actually being singles, and noting that "A Pain That I'm Used To" hasn't been released yet, in addition to the suggestion above). John5008 01:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Something To Do

"Something To Do" was a Depeche Mode single which charted in the UK Singles Chart in 04/12/2004 at number 75, it was originally included on Some Great Reward (album) in 1984. However, was it limited edition or something, cos i tried to put it on the discography here before, and someone said it was not a depeche mode single, whether or not it recharted??? true, i didn't really find the single in depeche mode discographies around the net, but the fact is the single was credited to depeche mode, and it did chart. can someone clear this up, thanks. --secfan 09:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'm not from the UK, so I don't actually know what version of the song charted. But, accompanying the release of Enjoy the Silence 04 was a limited edition 12" that contained "Something to Do (Black Strobe Remix)" as the A-side, and remixes of "World in My Eyes" and "Photographic" on the B. As this edition did not contain "Enjoy the Silence" is was titled Remixes 04. I'm not sure if this is the reason why it charted in 2004, or if it was part of some digital download thing, but if it is indeed because of this vinyl release, then since its catalog number was L12Bong34, that means it's still associated with the release of "Enjoy the Silence 04". I hope that may clear up any confusion, and not add anymore. :) john 5008 14:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well my point is that it charted, should someone add it to the discography, or AT LEAST write at note about it in there??? --secfan 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny how "Something To Do" charts a full month after the charting and release of "Enjoy The Silence 04". --secfan 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I added it with a note, after searching to ensure it was this version which charted. [1] The single still shared a catalog number with ETS 04, so others may still not be in agreement with its inclusion. Then again, if this were to be removed, "Dangerous" and "Halo" would have to be removed as well. Seeing as they weren't standard singles, you could make the case that none of these three should be in the table. If you want the table to be based on releases that hit the charts, they should be, but if you want the table to be based on singles with distinct catalog numbers, then they shouldn't. I myself would lean towards the latter, but I'll leave that up to discussion for now. john 5008 17:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not unusual for B-sides to chart, although it is for DM singles to do since they seldom do very much business after the first week (at least in the UK). UK single's chart info is based on airplay as well as sales so if I had to guess I would say that Something to Do was added to enough stations during the course of a week to warrant its inclusion in the lower eschelons of the UK 75. BTW, "The Darkest Star", the B-side of some editions of "Suffer Well", charted for one week in the Top 20 in Finland. So, weird, but not impossible. Jackbox1971 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts - DISCOGRAPHY TABLES

To main editors of this page: Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts regarding guidelines for the discography tables. The one on this article should not have boldfaced chart positions, the "#" symbol, the "weeks at #1" notations and the table itself is centered on the page. It looks as if parts of the table are ok tho, such as the superscript. I would be more than happy to redo the whole thing (plus make one for the albums), unless someone else with a stronger dedication to this article wants to do it. You may want to check out Eurythmics or Kate Bush's tables to look at an example that follows the guidelines more closely. I'll check back in a bit and get to work on it if someone else hasn't first.  :-) -- eo 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Early history

I think this is grammatically wrong: "...an association the band tried to later to downplay, with little effect."

to later to downplay? Shouldn't it be something like "an association the band later tried to downplay"? I didn't want to change it because i'm not native and probably i'm mistaken.--Baka toroi 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. John5008 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Added some more details. Check Early History, for citations and whatnot. -(Human historian 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

The start of this section mixes first names with last names and I think that has caused confusion in this sentence: "In 1978, Clarke played guitar in an "Ultravox rip-off band", The Plan, with school friend Robert Marlow on vocals and Vince on guitar/keyboards." Vince Clarke is mentioned twice, once as Clarke and then as Vince. --Mickraus 10:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Album pages

I was planning on writing more information on a lot of the album pages, and was wondering if anyone had any objections to my moving pages where disambiguation is unnecessary (i.e. moving Some Great Reward (album) back to Some Great Reward which links there anyway). This would also apply to the pages for A Broken Frame, Construction Time Again, and Black Celebration. John5008 13:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I waited almost a month, so I assume this switch was okay with everyone, and I just went through with moving the pages, as per WP:DAB which states, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate." I have already gone through the trouble of changing the various wikilinks to those pages to reflect the page movements. John5008 --- talk 04:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

French Look

I've noticed a bit of editing without citation regarding the bands who came before Depeche Mode, specifically French Look. The allmusic.com biography on the band mentions the chronology in this way: Vince Clarke and Andy Fletcher started as "No Romance in China" in 1976. By 1979, Vince and Martin formed "French Look", then Fletcher rejoined, and the band became "Composition of Sound". It was once Dave joined that they became Depeche Mode.

If you have another, more reliable citation regarding the line-ups of these former bands, please include it when making an edit. I think allmusic is pretty reliable, and thankfully, have added to that reliability by no longer claiming that the band's name means "fast fashion". John5008 | talk to me 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So I have the citation here [2], (on Erasure's main page, mind you,) that Fletcher wasn't in French Look. It's the soure with Robert Marlow. I think that's a reliable source, since he's one of Vince's good friends and apperently was in the band. Anywho, hopefully there's nothing contradicting that interview. and I also added some other little details in the early history, that I think are worth noting. I found those through my first source, and "Depeche Mode: Some Great Reward" But if people should feel the need to clean it up, that's cool, too.

-(Human historian 08:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Live support musicians towards top?

Well I think it's better than having them at the very bottom after (!) Trivia. Consider that DM can hardly ever go without a drummer anymore, because their songs have real punch now, and cannot anymore be performed with a Vince-Clark-ish Linn-or-whatever e-drum synthesizer. It's not 1983 anymore. ;-) -andy 80.129.95.110 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What do they have to do with the band besides touring, though? In terms of creative control, Martin, Dave, and Fletch, are the band. You wouldn't credit members of a backing band as members of a solo act. That's really what they are. The current backing musicians don't even play on the new album (Christian Eigner does do some programming though.) If one must, I guess putting them before Trivia would be ok. But I think they're fine where they are. (Human historian 02:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Christian Eigner also co-wrote three songs with Gahan on the album, he's more important. ::--Ira-welkin 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and so did Andrew Philpott. It doesn't make them members of the band. It makes them contributors. Human historian 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I put a link under the real members of Depeche Mode, that will take the user to the section of the page that shows the live musicians. Human historian 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I just cleaned up a bit of trivia added but i'm not entirely sure whether it should stay at all, what do people think? Sunhawk 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any proof of it at all? If they can't find a reliable source to cite, I don't think that can be regarded as true. --[kazikame] 19:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hello all. Just now, I've trimmed the external links section significantly because it was getting way out of hand. The section is always going to have a problem with spam, so I propose we institute some ground rules regarding external links. I'd say we should not allow foreign language sites (Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #7, we don't need to keep have links to site's about the band from all over the globe, it's unnecessary. This is the English language Wikipedia, so the official site should suffice). Fan sites should not really be permitted either, unless it's of major significance to the fan community.

For now, I've left the band's official site, the official solo sites of Dave and Martin, the band's myspace page (even that could be a stretch, but it's official, so I kept it), the visual discography and Sacred DM (both of which I've used as a research tool on countless occasions), and the open directory category for the band (i.e. where fan site links should be, not here). There are probably other pages that deserve to be here, but I didn't notice them as I was deleting.

Agree or disagree, please make it known here. John5008 | talk to me 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I also suggest adding a warning using the <!--hidden message--> tags, similar to the one on RHCP's page. --[kazikame] 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the following as a commented warning, as per the above comment:

"WARNING: Fan sites and foreign language sites are not permitted in this section. If you add such a link, it will be removed as quickly as possible. Please see the appropriate discussion on the talk page. Any link which does not contain relevant information that could be considered encyclopedic will be removed as spam. See Wikipedia:External links for more information."

Feel free to edit the warning as you see fit. John5008 | talk to me 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sunhawk 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One site that could be on here that is really useful is www.depmod.com but I leave it up to discussion to decide. I am not affiliated with the site but its pretty exhaustive, and not 'fan site' like at all in terms of content. What do you think? --Ira-welkin 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I had kept depmod.com in the first place (it's the "visual discography" I said I kept in my original post). It was kept because it falls in line perfectly with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and is a valuable tool for researchers. For the same reason I kept Sacred DM, because it's a collection of past news articles that I have cited on several occasions. John5008 | talk to me 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, see: I didn't realize that that is the one you meant. Very good! I will actually look at what you are talking about next time before commenting. ;) Yeah, awesome site! --Ira-welkin 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More trivia?

Right up until Exciter (or Ultra?) one would not hear a single solitary cymbal crash in a DM song. Not-a-one. This is noteworthy (I think) because cymbal crashes are such a prevalent thing in modern music. Is it worth it to put that in the trivia section? I know this is an aspect of synthpop, but it's not universally followed, AFAIK. --klaus

Hey, that's a pretty interesting remark indeed...which song is that with the cymbal crash? By the way, I do believe it is noteworthy as well of how heavily electronic this band is....well, no more cymbals crashes, please, we can always hear those in U2 if we needed them hehehe Mountolive 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, having read that I've instantly recalled (synthesised) cymbal crashes in "A Question of Time" (twice at the very beginning of the single version - and throughout). Just checked to make sure - yes, they had it as long back as 1986. I agree this is a rare instance though. Garik 11 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed interesting, as cymbal crashes are way overused on most rock music. --200.139.90.98 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Corgan

I have erased the reference to Billy Corgan as a live support artist not because his voice sucks and ruined the song...a-hem....but because he is not obviously a live support artist to DM, he only played that one act and that's all: keeping him there would be misleading. Actually I'd erase all the female chorus supporters as well, since they are not truly important to the band, but for this I guess I'd need more people who think as I do in this regard. Thanks Mountolive 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this point. Doesn't make someone a live support artist,just because they sang backing vocals to one song live once.

I don't even consider him a singer, period. Human historian 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First off i need to clarifie that,this song was badass,however i do agree that is name should not be used as a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.154.105 (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

just to add the facts; Corgan joined DM on stage in late December 1998 during an event of the radiostation KROQ to perform "Never let me down again. He did not only do backing vocals, he sang the whole first verse and the rest along with Dave and Mart. PLUS: he played an epic guitar solo. IMHO the best live version of the song ever. maybe not necessary for the article, but stil memorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.8.197.129 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

General Tweaking

Congrats to the page on getting an A ranking. I'd really like to see consistency in linking (only link first mentions of people/albums/etc.) and in whether the page uses UK or US punctuation (mostly with regard to single/double quotes and whether periods, commas, etc. go inside or outside of them). The page currently still has smatterings of fancruft. Also, I realize that the band is releasing a bunch of stuff these days with all the reissues and DVDs, but should the Playing The Angel section really be longer than the Violator and SOFAD sections combined? Maybe some of it could just be in the discography page, and we could point there. Perspective, folks, please. It would be great to get this to featured status, but a bit of self-control is vital. The page does not need MORE info, but it needs what it already has to be clearer, more consistent, and much better documented. Just some thoughts. Amber388 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern and your work, but I think more info doesn't need to be cut back or rejected, unless of course it pretains to a specific person, and has nothing to do with the band, overall. I do believe that nonsense should be written out, but whether or not it's nonsense should be discussed. Hence, the TALK page. I'm not sure what you mean about the discography. What do you mean exactly? Human historian 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wary of trivia and fancruft hurting what is very nearly an excellent page. There is nothing wrong with having interesting tidbits at all, but, for example, a note about "Just Can't Get Enough" being in an H&M ad campaign A.) does not belong in the Playing the Angel section, B.) was posted by a user (SideLine magazine) who nearly exclusively posts so that he can link references to his own page and thus generate hits, C.) has very little bearing on the band or their history, and D.) ignores other uses of DM in ads (e.g. The Gap) and thus seems a completely arbitrary inclusion. If we can have every bit of info conceivably pertinent, that's great, but with a lot of it, unless it is organized in a convincingly encyclopedic fashion, we should ask ourselves whether it really needs to be on the page. The same goes for edits made by fanbases that only serve to validate their own fandom (e.g. gratuitous mentions of Mexican DM fan culture).

I think if you just add stuff like that to "Trivia" it's not going to hurt the page. I agree it shouldn't be in the history though. I'll do a little scan of the page and move the trivia pieces to the "Trivia" section. Human historian 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the discography thing I mentioned, I simply meant that the discography has its own page, and that maybe instead of bogging down the most recent section with all the DVDs and reissues they've done, those releases could simply be moved to the discography section, so that if anyone really wanted to know every release ever put out, they could get it there. An encyclopedia article on Mozart doesn't bother to list every piece he ever wrote, and I'm not sure we should feel the need to do the same with DM here. This whole point though is not too important to me, and I'm not going to take anything like this off the main page; I just wanted to suggest it, and see what the community thinks about it. If there's no interest, I'll not make a fuss about it. Thanks. Amber388 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. At least nobody is trying to create separate pages for the remasters of certain albums. That's where I would draw the line. Human historian 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Known instruments and samples

This section is woefully random. Why list cello on When the Body Speaks but not string orchestra on One Caress? We're not going to get a full list of every sample they've ever used; that is a futile endeavor. Who is audience of this list anyway? Certainly not a layperson looking to learn more about DM. This is fan-obsessive stuff, and it is not encyclopedic. Sure, it's useful and interesting, but it really should be on another page. A wikipedia entry is not a deconstructive fan forum. Also, nearly all of this is uncited. I heartily suggest this whole section be moved offsite and maybe linked from the bottom. Amber388 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually this was created because of an argument about who should be listed as play which instruments, located under "Fletch Plays Bass." I feel that since Depeche's music revolved around samplers, it makes sense. Also, even though this is an encyclopedia, it uses a lot of non-conventional methods in writing. If, however, everyone else finds it to be a HUGE deal, than I don't see why we couldn't just move the samples to the albums (and or singles) that correspond with the list....or something. I think it's fine, either way, though.Human historian 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Depeche Mode biography by Steve Malins, Daniel Miller claims the first guitar sample was used in A Broken Frame. Is this true? Sunil 131.111.36.48 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was "Love, In Itself," but I'll look into it. Human historian 02:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm going to say that it was Love, In Itself, because I have yet to hear a guitar sample on any A Broken Frame track. Maybe the biographer was mistaken. It happens. Human historian 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi HH! I've got the quote from the biography here: "Daniel Miller believes:There are a lot of myths surrounding Depeche Mode that are really untrue; like they only started using guitars on their last two albums. The first guitar was used on A Broken Frame. They have an approach to the music which is still based on setting themselves rules, even if they break them. If you don't have a concept that way then your music becomes very indulgent and like everbody else's. We made all our own sounds, we didn't sample off records." Depeche Mode a Biography, Steve Malins (Andre Deutsch, London) ISBN 0233050248 .p56. Sunil 131.111.36.48 14:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this page, the more this section is a total eyesore. It really reeks of fandom. There are dozens of bands who use samples; none of their pages feel the need to have such a section. This is haphazard, arbitrary, largely uncited, and completely unencyclopedic. I'm really inclined to axe it. I know that it was created so that people could get Fletch's bass playing and Alan's drumming attributed, but I really prefer HH's idea of moving this list to be distributed among the albums to which it corresponds. Discussion? Do try to take yourself out of the role of "fan" for a moment and be objective about this. Amber388 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The other option is to just create a separate page. I'm still sticking with my opinion that it is fine, the way it is. I understand that you feel this is fandom, but also note that Depeche Mode is a band that is primarily sample-based. Not just one that often uses samples. There was a huge period between CTA and Violator, in which almost all the songs were based off Synclavier or Emulator experimentation. The main reason why I want to keep this up is because this sub-article has stopped the constant editing-battles regarding "who plays what." And believe me, it was constant.

That's just what I think. If other people disagree, than they can move it. Human historian 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the sample list, so I have created Depeche Mode Instruments and moved the information there. Is that ok with everyone? Human historian 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

POV, lack of sources, citations needed

I've removed three paragraphs from this article: While Depeche Mode remain popular in the United States and Western Europe, its most loyal fan base and widest appeal seems to lie in Central Europe and Eastern Europe fed by the timely confluence of several key events in this part of the world in the early '90s: the then world-wide popularity of Depeche Mode and synthesized dance music in general (which has since waned in the U.S.), the collapse of communism, and the rise of the Internet with the instant access this brought to a region thirsting for western music and ideals. Today there are countless fan-created web sites, in nearly every language, propelling the band to perpetual fame.

Without any references, this looks like original research to me. I also think this paragraph is rather unencyclopedic in nature: "seems to lie", "countless", "nearly every language", "perpetual fame".

[...] but the band declined to tour, perhaps on account of the results of the "Devotional" tour. The decision looks consistent with Wilder's claim that he took care of most of the many musical details concerned with live performance's sound while touring. They did, however, perform a series of "Ultra parties" for the music press and selected attendees designed to highlight the key tracks on the album.

The second sentence is highly speculative (and therefore unencyclopedic), while the description of the "Ultra parties" looks like corporate mumbo-jumbo .

Web blogs from L.A. to Sydney questioned if this wasn't a manifestation that indeed Depeche Mode had in essence broken up with the departure of Alan Wilder in 1995, as many fans believed that he was responsible for almost singlehandedly sculpting the Depeche Mode 'sound' during the band's most successful period. Gahan admits that Ultra and Exciter were particularly weak albums. He has commented on several occasions, expressing his regrets for Wilder’s departure, also adding that Gore should call him up and apologise. Shortly after the Exciter tour, Gore and Gahan seemed to sense that this would be a good time to busy themselves with new solo efforts.

Weasel-wordy paragraph. Lots of unsourced claims. While the post-Wilder decline definitely is relevant in any article on Depeche Mode, we mustn't turn this into an essay.

I've also added some {{Fact}}s to the article, were they are sorely needed. Devanatha 10:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last one, but I think the first two just need to be cleaned up. Even though there is no official citation for the first paragraph, it is well known as fact that they were popular in Eastern Europe. I know a lot of people get angry about that sort of thing not being cited, but I think it's fine. But yes, it is written poorly.

One example, I took off the citation for Wilder had stated that he contributed a lion's share of work while receiving the least credit on past albums, because this was mentioned in interviews, biographies, and even on the press statement, he released, when he left. Human historian 17:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A-class?

How on earth is this A-class? Refs are inconsistent, has cite-needed tags, etc. Rlevse 16:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Alan Wilder->producer

In the header part, similarly to Martin Gore described as "chief songwriter" (I added that myself so I am perfectly fine with it) I thought we could find a similar label for Alan Wilder as record producer. I mean, we have learnt that whenever "Depeche Mode" is listed as a co-producer of their records, that actually means "Alan Wilder", since the standard procedure was Martin submitting a rough demo and then Alan and whatever producer was in charged, "polishing" it. Since I am not a native speaker...does anyone have a proposal which express the above in a short way? Do you agree that this is remarkable? I think it is, because Wilder's input was massive, something which was proved by Ultra and Exciter (luckily Ben Hillier has found the recipee once again in PTA...I do hope he is hired for the next album again!). Mountolive 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the "songwriter" bits, because they're very petty. I'm am SO tired of everyone trying to glory grab for each member of the band. We should really just list what they play, because that's all people care about when you see them (or any other band) live. All that other stuff is already mentioned in the articles for each member and in the Depeche Mode article, itself. Human historian 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. How can we call "non important" to know who is, for example, the main songwriter? And, what's wrong with giving this information in the lead? I think is reasonable that the members status in the band is mentioned in the lead. It's important information, why hide it?

I am not willing to engage in any edit war on this, but my point is that, ok, we DM fans all pretty much know that Martin writes the songs, Dave sings them and Fletcher...is Fletcher, but this is not a fan page but an enciclopedic article and people who may visit this article may have no idea at all...why should we hide what the members do? Each one has its role in DM which justifies why they are there and why they are a part of the band (yes, Fletcher does some accounting or something :)

I can't see why this could bother at all your (good) point: that listening to what the play is what matters the most.

Mountolive 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating stuff like songwriter and producer, is fandom on it's own. I'm not for taking those facts out entirely. I'm for including them into the article itself, which it already is. It's just silly to make that their title. Dave: Frontman, Martin: Songwriter, Andy: Manager, Alan: Producer, etc. I doubt that non-fans would care less about who does what behind the scenes. Even if they did, "All that other stuff is already mentioned in the articles for each member and in the Depeche Mode article, itself."

Also, if you don't want to start an edit war, than don't make the changes, until the discussion is settled. Thanks. :P Human historian 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it this way. To me it is not fandom at all to know who does what: it is informative and, better than that, is objective. For, indeed, in this highly hierarchyzed (spelling? :) band, Dave is the frontman, Martin the songwriter, Fletch some sort of manager and Alan was the production/technical guy. This is what it is, we can't change it nor call it just fandom.

As for this info being already included somewhere else in the article, well...to be honest I have probably not read the article line by line (you caught me, here :) but this adds more to my point: people may not want to read the whole article, but is good that the basic info is mentioned in the lead section. To me the basic info is who are/were in DM and doing what. The rest will follow.

Hey, I only made the changes because someone else had done those changes before without waiting for the discussion :P :P Mountolive 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I still think it's pointless. When adding stuff to wikipedia, people need to stop thinking as fans, and contributing only what is vital (maybe not the best word) information. My main point is that it is irrelevant, hence why it should just be in the article. If people would like to know more about who wrote what, they can read the articles, or better yet look at the album and single pages.

Well originally the songwriting credits were not in there. So they shouldn't have been added in the first place. I reverted them back to an older version. :P Human historian 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(sarcasm) I mean if it's that important to you, let's also add that Alan played piano on a couple of the tracks or that Andy played bass on a few of the PTA tracks and did the vocals on 'Crucified' or that Dave played guitar on one of the interludes. (end of sarcasm) I am fine with having Martin credited as the main songwriter, but I am sick of people trying to stick every little single detail about the band members next to their names. There has to be a limit. Human historian 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that here the behaviour has not to be the one of a fan (as I have written above). I never thought of those remarks now removed as "fandom", on the contrary, I deemed them as "professional", for a succesful music band becomes, sooner than later, a job (and this approach can't be further than the one of a fan).

I don't give a damn about Fletcher "credited" as "handclapping" (still, I admit it is quite funny, though :) or Daniel Miller possibly farting through vocoder in order to get a new -and scary- sampler sound. In other words, I agree that those "micro-credits" are pointless.

However, no one was crediting in the lead such things as Andy's bass or Dave's guitar in PTA, it was only a quick glance at the workload between members, which I still find perfectly fine for the lead. Still, it looks like you really don't like the previous version, so let it be as you want. Mountolive 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well those sort of things were added by people in the past. It's somewhere on the talk page. I'm willinig to label Martin as "Main songwriter," but Dave wrote like three songs (so far) and Alan wrote less than ten (most of which were b-sides). That's why I feel it would be glory-grabbing to credit them as "songwriter." Same with Fletch as "bassist" or Dave as "guitarist" and so on and so forth.

I'm hoping that's a good compromise. I guess it wouldn't hurt to add Vince as "songwriter" seeing as he did most of the first album. Is that ok? Human historian 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Vince Clark wrote 95% of Speak and Spell, it's obvious that yes, he was definitely the songwriter by the time. I concede that maybe listing here in the lead Dave's "occasional songwriting" is giving too much importance to three songs out of a few dozens. Still, I think that something should be said here about the sound crafting/production tasks which Alan used to add (this was the point of this post until you grabbed it and used it against me! :S :P). His input was not occasional but certain, specially from Black Celebration through SOFAD, and it is not anecdotal but has been a great part of DM's sound. What do you think? Mountolive 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(drums fingers on the desk) That sounds good. I can agree to that. I do respect and acknowledge his production techniques. I just didn't want it to go so far that it'd list him as "sampler programmer" or "synth tweaker." Not that you were going to put that, put people have put arranger and programmer, in the past. But yes, listing as "producer" is fine.

I didn't mean to use anything against you. I'm, again, just tired of everybody listing every single detail about the band in the lead. You can read the arguments I had under "Fletch plays bass?" and me trying to stop from labeling him as the bassist because of 3 songs. And I'm saying this as a Fletch fan. After all, he is the most important member of Depeche Mode ;)

So, I think we're good. Thanks. Human historian 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't too serious when I said that you used this post against me. Sorry about that. I just meant that I wanted to add something and then you came and... deleted something else, which certainly wasn't a part of my dreams!

If you agree to list Alan as a producer, then, yes, we are definitely good, but, hey, we won't until you actually do it (it's your duty, otherwise you may say next time that I'm making "changes that shouldn't been added in the first place" or something like that :P)

You know what? I agree: Fletch is the most important member, as no one else can handclap in his finest style and, after all, if DM is known is because of his characteristic and powerful bass lines, isn't it?... :D Mountolive 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess what...I have removed from the Alan Wilder part in the lead "occasional drums" and "backing vocals". Those are not so relevant in the lead and I guess you agree. But...a-hem...looks like listing Alan just as "producer" could be misleading, as it could lead to think that he has been the sole producer of all DM songs, don't you think? We probably need some sort of "formula" such as "co-producer", "production credits" or something like that. Any suggestion? Mountolive 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

well that's what you get for making me write it. :P

In terms of albums after Music for the Masses, producer would make sense, but I'm gonna leave this one up to whoever. Human historian 07:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

as for the drums, I would understand leaving them out, since it was just on one album. Human historian 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Producer" by itself sounds like he produced all Depeche Mode albums. I think "co-producing" (or something similar) is more accurate. Mountolive 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is good. You could say "Production," too. I'm not really worried about how it's phrased. But I understand that "producer" is a bit of a half-truth. Human historian 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin should apologise???

Can someone tell me why we should keep this on here? I have failed to find a reliable source for this. Human historian 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nor have I. Frankly, I feel that this is most likely a fabrication - used to further a fan's POV. If Dave Gahan had really made such a divisive comment, one would assume that there would be significant media attention to the statement. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's bullshit. Haven't read that anywhere, and in any case, it is unencyclopedic. If there happens to be some obscure interview out there with Gahan saying this, I will apologize in this space but the burden of proof rests with whomever asserts this spurious "Fact." Honestly, I am not all that comfortable with the "fans said" type of comments, as in "fans didn't like Exciter" of "fans miss Alan Wilder." Honestly, I've run across fans on many message boards and mailing lists and I can a sizable population of Exciter supporters. It was, after all, a Top 10 album. Whatever we "hard-core" fans say about it (personally, I'd rather hear "Goodnight Lovers" than "Just Can't Get Enough" any day of the week) we need to keep in mind wikipedia's goals. Jackbox1971 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, this is made up by a group that a Stephen Colbert who cared about Depeche Mode would undoubtedly label the 'Wildernistas.' It's utter BS, like Dave honestly thought that the music the band were recording after Wilder left was no good, and that it should be apologized for. I respect Wilder, but some folks see him as the only reason to like the Mode. I like many of the songs from Ultra, Exciter, and PTA best. Anyway, agreed. --Ira-welkin 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, that's a good one, the DM caring Colbert and the Wildernistas :D by the way...I guess I am one of those! mhh...I am even considering creating Wildernista :P Mountolive 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some anonymous user keeps re-adding this comment, without any reference. I'm going to keep removing it until they provide one, because frankly, the fact that I can find no reference to this alleged comment of Dave's anywhere confirms in my mind that this is just made-up crap. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, he keeps readding. I asked him to stop on his talk page, since that seems to be is main IP address. Human historian 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He just got the message, after he edited my message to him. lmao Human historian 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

English grammar

I know this is a sort of futile attempt, but British grammar that is technically incorrect should not be featured, even though this is a British band. For instance, saying "Depeche Mode were..." is not correct, because Depeche Mode is a singular object, even though it is composed of more than one object. I know that most British people will do it this way, but if you refer to any official English source, it really is incorrect (otherwise you would be saying "were" for everything, because unless you're talking about quarks, there's probably more than one "thing" that makes up your object - and I hope no superstring theorist reads this) Metsfanmax 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction here. There really is no "British Grammar," per se. There is Engilsh grammar, from which we take our rules of synatax. There ARE distintions to be made between the idioms and usage patterns of UK English and US English, but from what I gathered from the discussion, the debate seems to be about subject-verb agreement issues. If this is the case, John Bull and Uncle Sam are in total agreement. Jackbox1971 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This grammar is only 'technically incorrect' in the USA. As an Australian, I find the phrase 'Depeche Mode was...' quite peculiar. What are these so-called 'official English' sources that you refer to? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed totally. I find that an American can claim that English grammar is 'technically incorrect' astounding, and downright disrespectful to be honest. Depeche Mode 'are' a British band, and this is how it should be written surely?

Also, Depeche Mode is not an "it." Depeche Mode is Martin, Dave, and Andy. Therefore it shoudln't be refered to as an it, through phrases such as "Depeche Mode was..." In further reading, you'll read phrases like "They were..." And, of course, "they" is "Depeche Mode." Human historian 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Depeche Mode is a group or a "class" in grammar; a collective noun. Therefore it takes the Part 2 of the Base verb. So one would say "Depeche Mode" is touring in Canada", but "The members of Depeche Mode are touring in Canada" if you want to talk about them as individuals. BTW, grammar is a matter of convention rather than nationality. I should add that this doesn't go with nouns that are already plural such as The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, in which case you would used the Part One of the Base verb ("The Rolling Stones" are playing tonight). But remember that it's Depeche MODE and not MODES. I apologize if this sounds grammar snobbery. But it is my line of work! Jackbox1971 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:ENGVAR, as a British subject, this article should be written in British English. --[kazikame] 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

British standards of grammar are the same for what we are talking about here. There are very few meaningful differences between the two except in areas of idiom and spelling. We are not talking about "dive" vs. "dove" or "color" and "colour". I would suggest that interested parties have a peek at the following website [3]Jackbox1971 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the Usage notes for British English usage (again, different from grammar), and find that British rock bands take the Part 2 or "plural verb form." Despite my reservations, it is best to go with this convention (although it makes no sense when you consider bands like NIN and The The where is basically a single member.) Jackbox1971 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But if the name of a group should be treated as plural, how come the word "group" itself isn't plural? So you should say "Depeche Mode ARE," but you'd still say "the group IS" --? The argument that we know Depeche Mode consists of more than one person and so should be plural, is flawed, because everyone knows a "group" consists of more than one entity, and yet it's a singular word. Therefore Depeche Mode, whether you consider them rock, pop or synth, is a group. --Hablahei 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we've concluded that being a British band, DM's article should follow British grammar guidelines and rules. Since I'm an American and not very familiar with the differences, I looked up this article (American_and_British_English_differences), paying special attention to the section on plurals. What particularly caught my attention was the sentence, "The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of 'individuals acting separately' is considered plural."

While it does indeed go on to give us an example that would have us use "is" instead of "are", it goes on to say, "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Giants are the champions." This would back up Hablahei and Jackbox1971's point, though I don't think that's necessarily what we're concerned about. Even considering the difference, surely we can agree that Depeche Mode consists of a group acting as a unit, and not as separately acting individuals. They are a band, after all. Garonyldas (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think "are" sounds better than "is" irrespective of which is correct. And a band act separately: Dave sings, Martin on guitar and Andy on Keyboards! But seriously Garonyldas why did you change only the first occurrence of "are" and not all the others? I will dig out my "Correct English" book tonight! best Sunil060902 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UK Charting Singles

QUOTE: As of 2006, it was estimated that Depeche Mode have sold over 73 million albums worldwide and have had forty-four songs in the UK Singles Chart.

First off, I am surprised how close this estimate is to my own calculation. By any measurement, it is difficult to get an accurate count because research is often misleading. By my count, I come up with a total of 46 charting singles in the UK. My guess would be that the author doesn't include "Something to Do" and "Halo", both of which charted for one week in 2004 at #75. Technically, these were items included on the "Enjoy the Silence 04" EP (BONG 34) rather than idependantly promoted singles in their own right. I know... hard to make heads or tails of these things.

Total charting songs: 46 Top 20: 35 Top 10 14 Top 5: 4

Jackbox1971 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it would be interesting (and helpful for researchers like myself) if there was a list of all charting songs from the band from each territory where they are released. For example, the album track "The Darkest Star" gained enough exposure from its inclusion on the "Suffer Well" single to chart on its own. I would be very curious to see if this sort of thing happens elsewhere. But I know from experience that chart research (especially international chart research) is difficult at best so I wont hold my breath. Jackbox1971 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: Depeche Mode

Why isn't there a Category:Depeche Mode, when, eg, other bands, like U2 or Genesis (today's FA) have their categories? One would think they deserve to have their own category, not? --Ouro 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. lol Human historian 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2001 - 2004: Exciter

In 2001, Depeche Mode released Exciter, which did not place well in the charts outside of Continental Europe. Although it spawned several dance club hits such as Danny Tenaglia's remixes of "I Feel Loved", many fans and critics felt the album was uninspired and underproduced.

I'm not quite sure if a #US8 placement - and sales in the region of 500,000 - really qualifies the above statement. Does anyone know where Exciter placed in Canada, or Mexico for example? As for the latter comment on the standard of the album, this seems to be mere opinion at best. What is certain is that Exciter did perform more poorly than Ultra in the UK and perhaps there is a case to be made for changing tastes in those four years; I've a link to a rather good online article in the NME from 2001, which describes the band as "too old for Radio 1, to weird for Radio 2" and perhaps that might go some way towards the lower chart placement for a band increasingly set adrift from the mainstream.

In fact, the whole 2001 - 2004 is a rather depressing read: give it a cursory glance and it looks like an obituary, rather than a period in which a band into its third decade managed to secure a hit album on both sides of the Atlantic, which they then toured to 2.5m people.

Oddly enough, whilst I've been writing this, the following has appeared:

Gahan himself has commented on his own disappointment with the album, admitting his regrets for Wilder's departure, also adding that Gore should call him up and apologise.

This is nonsense, isn't it? I've certainly never heard of it. --Error Gorilla 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it most likely is nonsense. However, some anonymous user continues to put the comment back onto the page.

I also agree with you about the post-Wilder section of this page being fairly depressing, and it definately doesn't adhere to NPOV. However, with these band pages, where the contributions are made predominately by fans, editors seem to often have difficulty separating their opinions from the facts. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I talked to him and it seems that he's agreed to stop. He altered the message that I sent to him, though, so we'll see. Human historian 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Exciter was a commercial success. Sorry to those who hate the album (I'm not a fan myself), but the sales charts don't reflect the so-called "critical consensus" among fans against the album. In Canada, the album went to #3. In the US the album charted HIGHER than it did in the UK (#8 vs. #9). It was #1 in Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Poland, Austria, and Hungary. It went to #2 on the Euro 100 album chart. In general, the DM article often smacks of "fan interpretation" of DM's career, rather than actual facts. I don't use the main article for research. I prefer the individual articles (discography, individual releasese, etc.). It needs a total rethink and rewrite. But I've notice this is the case with most main articles (check out Morrissey's, for example.)

If anything, 2001-2004 was a recapitulation era. Exciter, the Remix album, the singles box sets, the solo albums... they are all moments for the band to experiment and think about who they want to be in the new century. Thus, we get Playing the Angel, in my opinion, the band's most interesting album in many years. Jackbox1971 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wherehouse riots before the Rose Bowl?

Surprised no one actually mentioned this - the abortive signing that was set to happen at at the Wherehouse Records store on La Cienega opposite the Beverly Center before that 1991 Rose Bowl appearance. I've seen video taken from the inside of the store; apparently so many people were pushed up agains the glass in a mad crush to see their heroes Depeche Mode that the band became distressed and ran out the back while the cops tried to quell the crowds. Frightening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.131.16 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm actually attempting an almost full-rewrite of the article currently, and I'm definitely going to include this event - it is a great example of how popular the band had become by that time - and helps explain the surprise success of Violator. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Depeche Mode played the Rose Bowl in 1988, not 1991. The "riot" (I was there. A lot milling about. Some damage to property. Not exactly the Rodney King affair) occured on March 22, 1990, prior to the start of the band's World Violation tour. It might be worth mentioning if only that it prompted the release of a special promo cassette tape of band interviews. Jackbox1971 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

SORRY GUY - THIS RIOT WAS NOT BEFORE THE ROSE BOWL - THIS WAS THE RIOT BEFORE THE SHOW AT DODGER STADIUM. YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT THERE - SO AT LEAST GET YOUR GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.192.74 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad!

Overall the DM page here is good. Some things I do not agree with, but who am I to say? Overall pretty good! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.130.80.67 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

References in Pop Culture

Hello loves, I have something I think should be mentioned on the page, but daren't do it myself. I'm brand-new to the Wiki and not so sure how things work.

The Adult Swim program Venture Bros made a reference to Depeche Mode, with some characters (namely the Monarch and Dr. Girlfriend) spotting a member at a garage sale, and arguing about his sexuality.

I think this is noteworthy enough to be added in a Trivia or References in Pop Culture section, but I'm not sure

MistakenMantis 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What???

Why do we have to endure covers of Construction Time Again and Speak and Spell (ouch!) and then there is no cover neither of MFTM nor 101??

Heeeeeeeeeelp!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

My choice of covers on the main page was essentially random - change them yourself if you think others would be more appropriate. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just think that either MFTM or 101 represented a major breakthrough for the band and they should subsitute, if not Speak and Spell because, as their first LP it may deserve some attention, at least Construction Time Again...if only because its cover pretty much sucks ;)

as for replacing them myself, well, you are aware of my technical difficulties in this regard...

Mountolive | Talk 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When 72 million becomes 91 million

In the official press release for The Best Of Volume 1 Mute report sales in excess of 72 million. It's some leap from there to the current figure quoted of 91 million sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Error Gorilla (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

72 million becomes 75 million when EMI confirm it. ITN report that total sales (presumably including singles) exceed 100 million. ErrorGorilla (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dm2005.jpg

Image:Dm2005.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Album images have been deleted...

They've all gone, supposedly because they had no fair-use rationale. Just wondering if anyone is on the case of uploading new versions?

Winterspell 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

I often wonder if Depeche Mode is made up by Atheists or Christians. Alot of their songs seem to have a religious theme. Although the songs seem to be too out of touch to be consider positive Christian inspired, the themes don't seem to be negative enough for me to consider Atheist or anti-religious. Even though "John The Revelator" is very negative, it actually makes me think they could be the sort of "Hollywood Christians" that find any judgemental or moral areas their holy books distasteful.

The reason why I mainly bring this up is that there have been rumors that "John the Revelator" as depicted in the song actually represents corrupt a political leader(s). So is the song really about Revelation? --IronMaidenRocks 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all the members are agnositics, with Martin Gore maybe being a minor christian. I've heard on several youtube interviews that they never really followed a religion, but accepted some of Christianity's teachings. Particularly an interview with Gore in Mexico in 2005 and Gahan in 1986 (regarding "Blasphemous Rumors"). They certainly aren't atheists. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Everyone, please stop replacing the live image with the exciter promo image in the infobox. We cannot use fair use images when free alternatives are available. Exxolon 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BGC and, ahem... the other person

Friends, in all honesty, now these edits don't seem too much different. What is the principal difference anyway? I think we need a compromise. Simple rv will hardly ever do. Let us discuss. Garik 11 08:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us not. The other person is a sockpuppet. Case closed. BGC 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Seems the RV war has ceased. Garik 11 08:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The latest anon additions

I thought I would copy some of what I wrote at User talk:207.114.190.162 here.

"Hi again. The changes you wish to be made will not be achieved by continually adding them from various IP addresses, and here's why. The flag icon in the infobox is against our manual of style on flags, and the two bits of opinion about their albums is just that, opinion. If you can find a verifiable source for what you want to put, then we could consider including it. In the absence of that it ir original research. Please, please bring it to talk, and remember too that we operate by consensus here; the changes are not going to 'stick' unless a few people agree with you."

I'm taking it that what we currently have enjoys the consensus of those of us who monitor the article. I suggest any addition of material like this be discussed here first. I hope my explanation makes clear why I prefer the version without these proposed additions. --John (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John... As I've explained before, Depeche Mode have never acknowledged the public's "dislike" for Ultra & Exciter, because there WAS no dislike. They were just coming off of their Violator/SOFAD peak, that's all. They only have a window of time to play certain songs, alongside those from their "new" album. Guaranteed Playing the Angel won't hardly be played on the next tour, and that record had overall GREAT reviews, but Ultra & Exciter were fairly well-received OVERALL as well too. And, there's no proof to support that they were OVERALL considered bad records. BGC (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. On the merits of the edits and on the certain abuse of multiple accounts that is taking place, I encourage anybody to just revert these additions on sight each time they are made. Hopefully the abusive editor will eventually get tired and go away. --John (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article which I hope may encourage the getting tired and going away process. Any legitimate IP editors can post their suggestions here in the meantime. Sorry for the inconvenience. --John (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Paid attendance was 60,453 people"

Jonathan Kessler quoted in the 101 film. His exact words are: "$1,360,192.50. Paid attendance was 60,453 people, tonight at the Rose Bowl, Pasadena, June 18, 1988. We're getting a load of money. A lot of money; a load of money - tons of money!" [4] best, Sunil060902 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonably good article

It'd benefit from more citations, a bit of cleanup and a major copy-edit, then would be applicable for GA.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Group name

The name is an anglicised form of the French phrase "Dépêche Mode" - it's mentioned in the Formation section, but should this be in the first paragraph? Just suffered a VERY timely reversion (not the first time!), so looking for opinions. Seems like this should not buried deeper down the article (the group name is pronounced the French way, after all). Any thoughts? Leevclarke (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort but am convinced that what matters is the reason why the band was given a certain name as explained by the band members themselves and as it is pronounced by them (in our case by Martin Gore). Everything else would be original research or redundancy at the best. It is not too important to be explained in the first paragraph either. Garik 11 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Vince Clark pronnounce it in the french way. And he should know! If Martin Gore pronounce it differently I'm not sure what is correct. The name is frensh. Clark pronounce it like frensh. I think we should stick to that and let Gore get away with saying it wrong...

Dark Wave Genre

Don't many people consider Depeche Mode a Dark Wave band? Probably due to depressing songs like 'Blasphemous Rumors'. But darkwave is not listed in the Genre bog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.38.199 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Depeche Mode are Dark Wave by definition: Some of their work (specifically, Some Great Reward through Violator) is an off-shoot of New Wave with dark themes, synths, and gothic stuff. They used to and SHOULD be listed as "Dark Wave", but many of the album @$$hole editors say that the term isn't "widely used enough". So what? It's still a distinct and correct term regardless of how much it's used. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the term is widely used enough to have a fairly detailed article about it, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the genres. I mean, why bother having the article if it's not a term that's widely used enough to describe any bands? Ash Loomis (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's keep the genre there. I want all the genre editors that care to come here and debate it right now so we could reach a consensus. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

i like the Dark Wave tag more than the New Wave one currently in place. it decribes well their black celebration period for example. New Wave is such a broad descriptor it doesn't really help describe depeche music in anyway. so many bands fall under the new wave tag and with so little similarities. darkwave i guess narrows it down a bit. but Violator is in no way darkwave....violator was correctly labelled at the time as technopop. it was very technoish sounding...clean, futuristic and close to dance culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer07 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it and see what happens then Discoh8er (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respawn it, it's one of the more significative bands of darkwave. So PLEASE stop edting it, it's a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.51.13.34 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pioneers?

I would support the inclusion of this category if it can be referenced. Can it? --John (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[5] [6] [7][8] [9] These are just a few from hundreds of search results produced by Google. Undoubtedly, DM's inclusion into the categories "English musical groups" and "British electronic music groups" can also be referenced. Without DM these look totally strange. Garik 11 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are any of those reliable sources? Also, electronic music was well-established by the time Depeche Mode came around, so they didn't pioneer the genre by any stretch, unless you define "pioneering" as "groups which have been influential in the genre", which would mean the category is too broad and inherently POV, and should be deleted. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say "electronic music was well-established", this is absolute POV. What some consider "well-established" others may not. By your logic, everyone in the "pioneers" category may be questioned. Many, many sources call DM pioneers, and thus it should be included by consensus which only you oppose. Garik 11 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By well-established, I meant electronic music had been made for decades. Even its mainstream popularity began in the late 1970s. Depeche Mode didn't help establish the genre; even just considering synthpop they were preceeded by the Human League, Ultravox, and many other acts. Also, we have to go by reliable sources. Do those sources you provided adhere to Wiki guidelines for verifiability and reliability? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Granted, anything can be questioned. Many people would not consider DM rock, myself included. But the sources (some by musical critics) are there. I do not push my POV and try to delete the "rock" category. Neither should you. Garik 11 (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, its obviously a highly POV category; I've nominated it for deletion. indopug (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and subcategories

Excerpts from Wikipedia:SUBCAT:

There might be articles that belong in a subcategory, while not belonging in a parent category; without duplication, users might assume that all articles in the subcategory belong in the parent category, when this may not actually be the case. (See the "user benefit" rule in the next section.)

User benefit rule
Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication.

This is exactly what I was thinking about when insisting on both categories and subcategories. Garik 11 (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how keeping the categories benefits the average reader, given the categories that remain (ie. "English rock music groups") narrow by genre, but still clearly indicate they are English or British and are a musical group, and these categories are in turn filed under the categories removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the genres are often subjective. I think you did right when you removed Depeche Mode from the British house music groups subcategory (which I had tried to do before but then thought better of it). But you did wrong when you removed them from its parent category "British electronic music groups", too. Now they are in neither one of these! You must revert. Second, I am sure that for the reader to "spot their target" bands should be both in the "country of origin" category and optionally in the genres subcategories (which are often POVish and subject to change/removal). Garik 11 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

British techno groups is in the British electronic music groups category. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Many would argue that DM are techno, house, rock, etc. But certainly they are just "British" and "electronic". This is also how many if not all the other bands are placed in those (sub)categories. Garik 11 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that that category would already be filed under "British electronic music groups". WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Labelling Depeche Mode as “techno” [10]is very POVish, or, should I say more, totally wrong. I believe you are knowledgeable enough to admit it. More importantly, I cannot find any reliable sources for such “subcategorization”. Neither is their style defined as “techno” in the article itself, just “electronic music”.Garik 11 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) However, they don't need to be in Category:English musical groups as they are already in the subcats Category:English rock music groups and Category:English dance music groups --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much my point, Garik. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[same argument as the one I posted under the "Rock?" section] Whoever says that DM aren't rock is obviously blind. Sure, 1980-1986 was pretty much all synth, but look after that. MftM and Violator have a lot of "alternative" elements compared to the older albums (and if you look at many reviews or "music of x year" overviews, they say "Alt-rockers" LIKE DM were popular in the late '80s and early '90s [not including grunge]), though still being ultimately classified alternative dance. However, it's dead on starting with SOFAD. SOFAD and Ultra are 0% synthpop and almost completely rock (another reason why labeling them just "synthpop" is retarded). SOFAD is more "alternative rock" than -dance, features more guitars than synths, and Ultra is pretty heavy. In addition, Playing the angel is very much rock, just "electro-rock" and very much electronica too. More importantly, pretty much all major music sites and magazines consider DM to partly be an "alternative rock" band, which overrides most of your opinions pretty much. 3 albums with a lot of rock and a few more with some compared to 10-15 is more than enough to classify a band as "rock". Angry Shoplifter (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

genres are MEDIA LABELS by definition. instead of quoting band members u should be referencing media. otherwise we would list depeche mode as "ultrapop" as they liked to call themselfs (unfortunately for them that term never caught on and its not a (media) genre). to be honest i have seen depeche mode introduced a few times on tv and magazines as an alternative rock band (probably also for daves rockstar looks of the time) when "personal jesus (devotional live)" and "i feel you" were on heavy rotation on the mtv programme alternative nation.... to me is only relvant to part of their work so i wouldnt list alternative rocck as a defining genre for the band. but on the other hand if genres like postpunk are there as main genre(never ever seen depeche mode introduced as "the post punk band depeche mode") ...then anything can be added to the list. i have all depeche mode tv appearence from 1981 to date and most english magazine articles....the most used tag to desribe depeche mode music has always been "Electropop" but that is not even on the list! go figure.... in this article i see lots of stubborness and prevarication by a few misinformed contributors with too much time on their hands (forgettin that wiki should be a collective work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer01 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Depeche Mode/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

How on earth is this A-class? Refs alone are a mess. Rlevse 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I reset it to B-class.--Rmky87 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)