The Police: A Forgotten Band?

Yeah, but a great musician doesn't always translate to a great songwriter. They're two very different skill sets. You have many phenomenal musicians who can't write songs to save their lives (some would argue David Gilmour falls into this category). Elsewhere, you have great songwriters who are only passable musicians (some would argue Kurt Cobain falls into this category). One doesn't beget the other. Sadly, in the case of the Police.

 

Edit: Stewart Copeland, not Stuart. LOL. Time to go to bed.

 

Fair enough. I'm one of those weird people who likes Pink Floyd and the Sex Pistols. So, a rock band of prog musicians doing punk songs was right up my alley. I actually love the first two albums unreservedly. But you're not the only person to mostly dismiss them out of hand, singles not withstanding. For many, the band didn't gel until Zenyatta Mondatta. To each his own.

 

About a dozen. Out of 50+. About the same number of songs that could be considered punk. And yet, for some reason, some people insist on labeling them a "reggae band" or a "punk band." Honestly, it would be like calling the Beatles a Picadilly Circus band.

 

I agree. I think '80's pop took a colossal nose dive in 1985. I don't know that you can lay it entirely at the feet of Starship, but they were certainly one of the main offenders.

 

I certainly hope what you say is true!

 

Agree - and yet funny enough I just watched the Criterion Collection Blu-ray of the Coppola film Rumble Fish - and one of the extras is a brief piece on the (fascinating) soundtrack which of course was done by Stewart Copeland about a year before the Police started to completely implode. In an interview in the piece even he refers to, at the time he did the soundtrack, being in “a punk band!”

Anyway I think the Police were far more ska than reggae influenced.

 

This has to be more about the folks who do or don’t listen to music in this way than about actual popularity I would think.

 

Incorrect. "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" was also re-recorded, but it wasn't scheduled for wide release, appearing as "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da '86" on the 2000 version of Every Breath You Take: The Singles compilation from 1995, replacing the original recording of the same song.

 

I was once advised - If you love someone, set them Free.
If they come back to you, they will be yours forever.
(Sounds like BS, but one can at least try it.)

 

Wrong. Both songs were redone. Wikipedia is your friend.

 

Yeah but is A-Ha 9 million listens to Take on Me?

 

Except 1985 is when "Songs from the Big Chair" came out. So no huge collapse, but the signs were there!

 

Correct. That being said I don't like either of them but they weren't really a band by that time anyway.

 

Which lyrics did people single out as being racist?

 

Not really a "patently false [or] kinda dumb" statement actually (and talk about defensive and patronizing!). He made the observation that the pace of Sting's material can often be in "dirge time," not the rhythms themselves.

First, he's probably not talking about much of the material from the first three albums (four, if you count Bring On the Night), mostly recorded with Omar Hakim and Manu Katche. Those albums tended to be more sprightly than dirge-like. Obviously, there were exceptions. I suppose someone might call a song like "Fragile" dirge-like. While the percussion is poly-rhythmic, the tempo is quite downbeat, even if it does have a lilt to it. Because of that lilt, I wouldn't label it dirge-like. But some might. Ditto "The Secret Marriage." But "Russians" is the very definition of a dirge. Anyone who would argue the point obviously doesn't understand the term.

Yet more likely, he is talking about Sting's work with Vinnie Colaiuta. One look at Colaiuta's resume will tell you that his defining characteristic is versatility. For anyone who has worked with Frank Zappa, Burt Bacharach, and Megadeth, that goes without saying. If you ask him to play a dirge, he will play a dirge. And Sting has asked him to employ dirge-like rhythms on numerous occasions. "Shape of My Heart," "Valparaiso," "Ghost Story," "Whenever I Say Your Name," and pretty much the entirety If On a Winter's Night - just to name a few of the main offenders - could all be considered "dirge-like" in their tempos.

One could make the argument that with a more forceful personality (like Stewart Copeland, or for that matter, Omar Hakim or Manu Katche), Sting might have "picked up the pace" of these songs, making for more dynamic compositions. And I concur with that assessment. I have found things to love about each of Sting's albums, but the often glacial pacing is among my chief criticisms.

BTW, on a sidebar, calling your opponent "dumb" never makes you look smart. Ever.

Try harder.

Love,
Mark

 

I'd say Toto is 86.3% "Africa," "12.7% "Hold the Line," .8% "Rosanna," and .2% other. But my margin of error is a standard deviation of 2.5% + or -. Give or take.

 

I actually think the decline started with Mercury Falling. Despite a couple of great singles ("You Still Touch Me" and "I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying," which, curiously, came back to back in the middle of the album), the remainder of that disc could have been marketed as a cheaper alternative to Sominex. I literally only ever listen to that disc when I'm having severe insomnia.

 

Yeah. Michael Stipe mentioned that it was kind of painful when he announced that the group was breaking up, because the most common response on message boards was, "I thought they broke up a long time ago."

 

Their success was pretty massive. Maybe not as massive as AC/DC. But massive nonetheless. That's like saying Prince wasn't massive, because his success paled next to Michael Jackson. There are varying degrees of massive success. Also, one thing the Billboard numbers game doesn't account for is MTV. AC/DC was big on MTV. But the Police were huge. They probably got 5x more video airplay than AC/DC (or nearly any other band, besides maybe Duran Duran), and given the popularity of MTV at the time - it was many people's main source for discovering new music - their success on that platform cannot be underestimated. Yes. Their success was massive. If you don't think so, you were either A) not in this country during the mid-'80's, or B) you were under 14 years old at the time. Anyone high school age or older knew who they were. That's massive.

 

A star is recognized by fans of the artist, or if big enough, by music fans in general. A superstar is recognized by the man on the street. People who didn't know #$@%-all about music knew who Sting was, and could hum along to at least three or four of their songs. They were superstars.

 

So, let me get this straight: You're docking them points on "classic band status" because they didn't have long songs? WTF? Is that a thing? I've never, in my life, heard anyone try to make that case before. I mean, some of the only "long" Beatles songs (besides song suites) were tracks like the "half-chorus" "Hey Jude" and "Revolution #9." Neither of which you could "stretch out" and jam on. Does that make The Beatles a crap band? For Chrissakes, what a ridiculous argument.

 

Ghost In the Machine: An album so good, even people who don't know its name love it.

 

But you don't hate U2. You're just not a fan of their recent output. There's a difference.

 

I am from Houston, and I know who Derek Jeter is. And I quit seriously following baseball about 30-35 years ago. Derek Jeter is a pop culture phenomenon.