New Music: Depeche Mode – Sounds of the Universe

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Depeche Mode is not New Order, although you could be forgiven for mixing them up, I suppose, if you’re not paying attention, or just looking at their keyboards, or maybe their career arcs. Actually, Depeche Mode’s unlikely, meteoric rise to super-fame and subsequent plateau most resembles The Cure’s: minimalist, early ’80s experiments give way to mid-’80s “alt-culture” idolatry, then early 90’s chart-topping mega-success, and finally a semi-retirement based on recycling (with varying degrees of success) the motifs of their earlier output. But there’s a reason New Order gets their own section on my record shelves, while D-Mode languishes on the ’80s shelf: they’ve always been a little, well, obvious for my taste, I guess, with their Peoples are Peoples and Personal Jesuses and I Expect to Find God Laffff-ing. Plus, what may be their artistic peak, 1990’s “Enjoy the Silence,” was basically a New Order homage, at best. But, weirdly enough, Sounds of the Universe, their 12th and latest album, achieves an intriguing complexity by looking to the lessons of early New Order, i.e., being a little obscure might not be such a bad thing.

First off, the title is our first giveaway something here is different. It seems to be a reference to “music of the spheres,” a philosophical concept that notes the musical properties of the movement and positions of the planets. The second clue is the cover: All previous DM albums have featured dramatic photography or (in their later years) faux-sloppy alt-grunge graphics, but here, things are flat and clean, with 17 brightly-colored lines intersecting a black circle at various angles on a gray field. While Pitchfork called it a reference to Pick-Up Sticks, it looks more like something by Malevich or Lissitzky to me, whose “suprematist” philosophy aimed to explore the fundamental through abstraction. No faux-gothy roses or cloudscapes here.

Also, come to think of it, the cover kind of looks like Movement, New Order’s grief-stricken 1981 masterpiece, to bring me back to the New Order point, which I’m sure isn’t making me any friends amongst DM fans. But while Movement‘s sharp pain and despair was a clear reaction to the recent suicide of Ian Curtis, Sounds of the Universe has a certain compelling, resigned wisdom to its darkness. Album opener, the nearly 7-minute “In Chains,” showcases the band’s rediscovery of vintage synths, and that buzzy, warm hum is instantly attractive. “Chains” starts off with typical pop-music lust—”The way you move/Has got me burning”—but immediately turns to the dark side, equating love (most likely unrequited) with entrapment. Lead single “Wrong,” with its swing rhythm, strange melodic turns, and absolute despair, has more in common with early blues than anything else, even though it sounds like lurching robots. “Peace,” with its soaring, Kraftwerk-y tones, uses superficially positive lyrics to achieve a creepy desperation: “Peace will come to me/Just wait and see.”

Of course, Sounds of the Universe is just about as long-lasting and varied as the actual universe, with 10 of its 15 tracks topping out over four minutes, and no less than six different physical and online versions of the album, including a deluxe box set of CDs, DVDs and a book for $100. But heck, they’re Depeche Mode, they can do what they want, and it’s nice to see them doing what they want musically as well. Ironically enough, while they call these sounds universal, this album is definitely, refreshingly, not music for the masses.

“In Chains”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate