Just thinking about this from the OMD thread... they're still releasing stuff today, but it just doesn't have the same sound as their 80s/90s stuff and I can't get into it at all.

I think the same when I hear current music by the likes of Nik Kershaw (okay, but nothing special), Simple Minds, even Pet Shop Boys.

Recently been listening to the new album by Prefab Sprout, and Paddy McAloon has kept more or less the same sound he had 25 years ago, just writing new songs in that style, and it's great!

So why is 'evolving' necessarily a good thing? If an artist can keep people happy for decade after decade by writing fresh songs but in the same style, what's wrong with that?

Taking Prefab Sprout as my example, 'List of Impossible Things' may sound 'a bit' like 'We Let The Stars Go' from 1990, for example, or 'Adolescence' could well have been made in the 80s, but they're still new songs, new melodies and new lyrics, and belong to today.

Why should he have to experiment with new styles to 'stay relevant'?

I actually think Dresden, by OMD, this year, sounds not too unlike Enola Gay from 33 years ago, although a little more richly produced in terms of the electronic sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwONDpVJoyE

I think most band's sound naturally evolve over time (most good bands anyway). Having said that if it aint broke, don't fix it.

I think 80's bands should do a little bit of both. There's a happy medium. To me, the best records by 80's bands are when they still make music in the same genre as their older records, but give it a slightly different more modern contemporary twist. Duran Duran's recent albums are a perfect example. Going too far to either extreme is bad. You don't want to make the same record over and over again, but at the same time you don't want to change totally so you lose what people loved about you in the first place. It's a balance.

As above ^^^. Evolution can always be good musically, but it works best for those remaining their own individuality, roots, or style.

Well there are some artists who seem capable. U2 and Madonna have evolved very successfully over 4 decades but it's unusual and risky. Artists are more likely to grow old gracefully if they last that long, perhaps?

I think McAloon/Prefab Sprout's advantage here is that he hasn't released anything for over 10 years... so he comes out with something pretty similar to what he was doing 20 odd- years ago, but people like me who enjoyed him then are very happy to hear new songs written in that same style. Maybe if he'd been releasing similar stuff year after year, it might not be so welcome.

Duran Duran are a very good case... I think they changed a lot when they had that American guy Warren in the band, from the classic hits that we've grown up hearing... but going back to their original line-up, they've gone back more towards their original style, so attracting a lot of the fans they had in the 80s back again I guess. Their recent concerts sold out anyway.

I've been listening to some early Spandau Ballet, and I can't quite believe how much they changed within 2 or 3 albums. I've grown up thinking of them as almost a smooth jazz crooning group, but their early albums veer from electronic to latino funk, they didn't seem to know what they wanted to be. I wonder how many fans they gained and lost in these years when they were veering off in different directions...

I suppose the trick to successful evolution is to change at the same rate as your audience... The Sundays developed so much within their 3 albums, yet they always sounded right for their times... so maybe I'm defeating my own woolly argument here!

It can be frustrating when a band moves away from a sound that you like before you've tired of it but hopefully other bands fill the gap. At least nowadays it's comparatively easy to find music of a very specific type.

Dead Can Dance had a very dark, gothic sound early in their career which I loved but later on they explored other avenues such as medieval, traditional folk, world music etc which weren't so much to my taste. However their early stuff was a huge inspiration to later bands like Arcana, Artesia, Dark Sanctuary etc who carry the torch to this day.

It's okaaay but I wouldn't buy it.... it's a bit like OMD meets Jean Michel Jarre meets Calvin Harris... actually, it sounds like older blokes trying to sound trendy by using the latest technology, and the production is incongruous with an OMD track for me, just my opinion mind.

Isn't Warren Canadian?

Andy left around 2007 again so now they're a four piece.

They've only gone back to the original sound because the fans hated their last two records - Astronaut and Red Carpet Massacre. Astronaut was made with the full original line up, Red Carpet with just the two Taylors and Le Bon and Rhodes.

Just as well Simple Minds and Ultravox were playing their 80s hits at the O2 tonight.

No he was definitely American - and I actually liked his era with Duran Duran far more than the 'comeback' albums since. 'Pop Trash' is hugely underrated and 'Medazzaland' while a failure is at least a interesting failure - unlike the bland shit of 'Astronaut' and the dismal attempt to be modern the was 'Red Carpet'.

Warren Cuccurullo is a New Yorker.

Maybe you are thinking of Ultravox drummer Warren Cann, who is Canadian.

I thought Pop Trash was dull. A few beauties like "Starting to Remember" & "Lady Xanax" but other than that just so...dreary. I like Medazzaland and think it's aged well.

I agree about Astronaut and Red Carpet Massacre. Really poor. "Taste the Summer" is perhaps their worst song ever and "Night Runner" makes my chicken curl.

Did you go? Would have loved to see Simple Minds again. One of the best live bands i have ever seen.
They opened with Waterfront. It still gives me tingles thinking about it now. All Dark, heavy bass intro to synced white light. Incredible!