Talk:Depeche Mode

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 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)

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 Sep 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.

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 Oct 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.

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)

"Fast Fashion"

It seems there's a bit of a debate about what "Dépêche Mode" actually translates to, as most online sources claim it to mean "Fast fashion"...while "mode" certainly means "fashion", "dépêche" means "dispatch" or "update". "Se dépêcher", however, means "to hurry" which is probably where the mistranslation comes from, but that's not the case here. So the band's name should translate to "Fashion Dispatch" or "Fashion Update" (I've also seen "Fashion Bulletin" or "Fashion News" as similar translations) and not "Fast Fashion". I don't actually know much French, so I hope someone who actually knows the language can back me up on this. (Source: [1], [2]) John5008 17:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The closest translation is probably "dispatch", but the figurative meaning is "magazine". "Fast Fashion" is clearly wrong.

Ok, my native tongue is French (I'm from Québec). Depeche Mode doesn't mean "Fast Fashion", it's a fact, and it's obvious to anyone fluent in french. Like John5008 mentioned, the verb "se dépêcher" means "to hurry", and just like someone could shout "quick!" to tell someone to hurry, someone can shout "vite!" in french, which means fast/quick. The noun form of "dépêche" has a different meaning, it means "last-minute news update". The magazine wanted to be seen as some kind of news service for fashion. It seems that "Fashion News Dispatch", or "Fashion Update" would be the best translation.

So I propose that we acknowledge the fact that the term "Fast Fashion" was mistakenly used for years, and that the real meaning is something else. I will wait for some reply from the higher instances here, just not to cause any problems, but it's a wiki, so I'll edit the article myself if I don't get a reply. --VL-Tone November 16, 2005

I have included the following text as an attempt to cover all bases:

The new name was taken from a French fashion magazine, "Dépêche-mode", which translates to "Fashion Update" or "Fashion News Dispatch," though it has commonly been mistranslated as "Fast Fashion."

Hopefully this is to everyone's liking. John5008 15:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks John, that's perfect, you restored my faith in the Wiki! --VL-Tone

depeche mode wasnt it some french architectural movement i thought? that the french govt stamped out due to its tendency to spur antipatriotism, which is why no traces of it are visible today

a;sldkfj 13:21, 16 November 2005

No? John5008 03:59, 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

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?

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. [3] 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))

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)

Editing Policy?

Hello there, I just made a few minor edits to the Depeche Mode article, mainly keeping it up to date (with news about Suffer Well being the third single, and the tour rumours being confirmed), but now my changes have gone. So it made me wonder if there is some particular policy about editing this page, or one person who manages all the editing? Thanks

MelancholyRose 01:16, 30 December 2005 (CET)

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 [4], (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)

Rock?

In the genre section. I don't deny they have influences of rock in their music, but I wouldn't say that they could ever be described simply as rock. What do people think? I don't want to edit it, because it might have been decided before that they are definitely Rock or something.. Sven945 10:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think there are far too many genres (10?!) listed in the infobox, many of which are a bit of a stretch. While the band may be influential in certain genres, I wouldn't include techno or house (or dark wave, or the vague "electro") as their genre. In my opinion, the genres listed should be synthpop, new wave, post-punk, and alternative rock. I'll leave this up to discussion, as usual, before changing things. I think a lot of these genres were added back when those anons kept adding POV statements to the article and tried masking it by changing around the genres right afterwards (I know I missed a lot of the POV additions because the genre changes were the most recent edits on my watchlist). John5008 | talk to me 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with them not really being (in my eyes, at least!) techno or house. Again, Alternative Rock or Alternative Dance seems wrong too, but then again that's just my opinion. I'd have said they were Electro, however the definition on here of Electro doesn't fit with Depeche Mode as far as I can see. Electronica seems more appropriate if you ask me (from Wikipedia's definitions), although probably only because the Electronica article admits that the term is very vague. I think that a single, all encompassing term may be "Electro-Rock", but there isn't an article on that on here I don't think, and I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to start an article on the subject. This kind of shows that the subject of genres is VERY difficult to get right! Sven945 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Depeche cannot be labled as a single genre, or even almost any genre. It's a song by song thing, but the whole 'Depeche' sound isn't in any genre. 'Alternative' and 'Alternative' only, with rock or anything like that ommitted, is the only thing close. 'Alternative Electro-Rock,' now there might be a more fitting label, but does that make it useful? How many bands could it describe. Depeche are... Depeche Mode. I think that is why so many genre are listed, it could fall into so many catagories depending on the song and mix. --Ira-welkin 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that people are trying to associate rock with Depeche, simply based on the fact that there's guitar in it, and their look is rock n' roll, to some extent. I somewhat agree with Ira-welkin's view on DM, but I think that if we had to categorized him, they would fall under "pop," for sure. They have called themselves a pop group and they follow the standerd pop format in music; "verse, chorus, bridge, middle 8, etc." Human historian 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Come On! How the hell is depeche mode 'house' or 'Techno'? Those are horrible ways to describe their music.--69.234.106.60 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been aligned with those descriptions since Violator, which proved to be very popular with house DJs, though i agree the "techno" label is even less accurate. Sunhawk 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New Romantic certainly belongs, because that's the specific movement the group belonged to early in its career for its first few albums. WesleyDodds 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell that to the band though, who have always refused to be associated with that sub-genre (I think they always refer to themsleves as "futurists" at the time). I personally always thought that putting them in with all of the other New Romantic's was kind of a stretch, but that's just opinion. In any case, since I assumed we were discussing what should go in the infobox, New Romantic was never listed there anyway, though I've never disputed its place in the article's intro. John5008 | talk to me 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)