06 September 2009

Mute Chorus

I have a confession to make. Actually I have quite a few but for the purposes of this feature I'll let you in on a secret. Coming ready or not. I'm an Erasure fan. What no reaction? Erraaasssure!



Perhaps you think I'm madder than ever. Perhaps this musical faux pas may be quickly forgotten about and we'll never speak of this again. After all they're just not 'cool' enough to be taken seriously or to be worthy of credible appraisal. But it's not pop music's role to be 'cool'. Pop can be as naff, exciting, tear-jerking, ecstatic and as offensive as it likes. Let's not get bogged down on the state of pop music. 'But why are you harping on about an 80s pop act?' you may well ask. Okay so they aren't as popular as they once were, very few acts over twenty odd years in the music business tend to shift as many units as they used to, but this is besides the point. So Erasure haven't had a no.1 album since 1994 and their albums since then have, well, not delivered anywhere near the same amounts of success. So what? Here's more Erasure.

So, you cynics like me, may ask, was there ever a time when Erasure were popular or cool? The eloquent answer to this must be, you're damn fucking right! I'm not so sure about how 'cool' they ever were but put it this why, hailing from the 'cool' label Mute Records, and largely considered an 'indie' act because of the labels business credentials, Erasure were, ooh, for at least 7 or 8 years decently promoted and featured in many publications in the music press. The idiosyncratic pure electronic pop of the duo, the flamboyance and sheer knack of knocking out more than a few quality three minute pop singles contributed to countless Top 10 singles (including the odd number 2 and number 1 single), five no. 1 albums, sell out arena tours (including one 50,000 capacity at Milton 'big bowl of fruit' Keynes in 1990) and were coveted by mums, dads, sisters, brothers, gay people, straight people, black people and even music journalists. Everyone I hung around with in my youth from about 1986-1991 adored Erasure, of course they adored The Communards, Pet Shop Boys, Bros, A-ha and Wet Wet Wet as well but you know what I mean.

I suppose the hype and popularity of Erasure in the late 80s was not dissimilar to Scissor Sisters a couple of years ago or the shocking success of Mika. There acts are more or less exactly the same market but Erasure's 2005 album, 'Nightbird' and 2007's 'Light At The End of The World' seemed to bypass this market somehow. So yes, they were popular...and to some extent, if you actually care, cool, given that Mute Records have given us Depeche Mode, Goldfrapp and Moby, Nick Cave, tend to be regarded as safe bets of what might given the impression of credible. So my question to the music industry is what happened? The public couldn't have fallen out of love with Erasure if the press weren't writing about them. Was Erasure's last greatest single really 'Always'? The recent 'Breathe' which made the Top 5 in 2005 is regraded by Erasure fans as a classic. 2007's 'I Could Fall in Love With You' had all the hallmarks and infectious hooks of an Erasure floor filler at weddings.




While we're at it, in the days when I went to Under 18s discos, the moment the Indian Rubber Megamix of Erasure came on, the moving throng would bob you along to the dance floor. Some Sunday nights in 1987/88 in my town were given over to Erasure nights. So why the cold shoulder? Can they really be dismissed as 'too camp' in an age where Kylie and any number of Big Brother winners are whored around? Has their sound committed the cardinal sin in 'serious' music publications of not jumping on any half-arsed popular generic bandwagon? I want to understand why, it's probably the same kind of curiosity in me that wonder why A-ha aren't the biggest band in the world when U2, Oasis and The Killers are generally considered to be. I mean Yazoo, Vince's previous incarnation enjoyed some really glowing reviews when they got back together for some shows in 2008.

I'm fairly confident that Erasure's fall from grace is due in part to a number of factors. Erasure fans will lay some of the blame on the issue of class. Erasure aren't seen as classy as, say, at a guess, the Pet Shop Boys. Andy Bell has spoken out about a homophobic media and press, and although there may be a lot of truth in his claims, it didn't stop Michael Eavis inviting the Pet Shop Boys to play Glastonbury in 2000. So are Pet Shop Boys to blame? They enjoy more acclaim, column inches and publicity. However are they any more successful? Both bands produce electronic pop. Erasure use vintage synths, while Pet Shop Boys straddle contemporary dance genres. Lyrically Neil and Andy are different, the formers lyrics tend to be introspective, detached, intellectual, sincere and heartbreaking, whilst Andy too does heartbreaking, but his words are often sentimental, fairytale-like, personal and unusual. The fans of both bands may very well have similar subtle differences and aspirations but I'm sure they share a love of classic pop music, be it Abba, The Human League, New Order or Kylie Minogue and I know from some casual visits to the various forums, Erasure fans are just as contemporary and forward looking in their tastes as the Pet Shop Boys fan. So why division? And derision?

My own rationale for this oversight is that the media and music press must have got bored with Erasure. To them Erasure were a novelty and while it lasted they sold copy. Above this there was a couple of weak albums and strange single choices. Arguably the self-titled 'Erasure' album released in 1996 was their strongest, consistent, dark and experimental opus. This was the most overlooked. A true 'lost' and 'misunderstood' album. Ironically this was where the commercial decline began. This wasn't redeemed by 1997's weaker, 'Cowboy' album. The album title alone was, at worst, questionable and apart from the singles extracted from it, it failed to open up anything refreshing. Then when fresh electronic music, or 'electroclash' was starting to emerge from New York, Erasure put out 'Loveboat', a dirtier sounding work produced with Flood. This album, some fans wondered, was mastered all wrong. I enjoyed the brave sonic experiment but I wondered why on earth it was called 'Loveboat', why the cover art was naff and cheap looking and where had the four on the floor singles gone. Maybe they were forced to walk the plank. Nevertheless it was their worst performing album since 1985's 'Wonderland'. So was Erasure finally sunk? Well not exactly. There was a dubious cover's album in 2003 in the shape of 'Other People's Songs' which saw them return to the Top Ten singles chart in the UK with 'Solsbury Hill' and the next album, 2005's 'Nightbird' did give the impression of featuring a couple of Erasure classic signature sounds with chords and hooks to match, but nothing quite as seductively pop or classic as 'The Innocents' or 'Chorus'. Then came 2007's 'Light At The End Of The World'. Well this was in many sense a return to form, if you forgive the horrendous cover art work, and it did pick up some good reviews for ages, but, well, is it now too late?


In spite of all of the above I'm enjoying the joys of Erasure, past and present in the shape of their best album tracks, b-sides and remixes, all collected and updated in my iTunes playlists, and with the re-emergence of electronic music, maybe it's time for you to re-appraise Erasure.

No comments: