It’s early 2015 and two names I haven’t really thought about in years are releasing new albums: The Pop Group and Gang of Four. Both enjoyed legendary runs in the late 70s/early 80s post-punk scene and had similar approaches to music, art, and politics. With both of them releasing new music at almost the same time, it only seems fair to look at both records at the same time. Especially since comparing them shows how each band has changed in their latest re-formations.
Let’s start with Gang of Four, since they came first. They didn’t invent post punk, really, but they were there when it exploded. They played their first gigs in 1977 and even in a crowded UK punk scene, there wasn’t really much like them. They mixed far-left politics with screeching, abrasive guitars, and a relentless bass/drum attack.
Unlike peers like The Pistols, Clash, or Buzzcocks, you could almost dance to Gang of Four: while Andy Gill’s guitar sounded like it was on the verge of exploding his solid-state amps, the rhythm section of Hugo Burnham and Dave Allen provided a relentless, almost funky groove. As Gill said in the liners ona reissue of Entertainment!, “we weren’t trying to make dance music – that was a happy by product…” Accident or not, it certainly worked wonders, the contrast giving their music a compelling tension.
Indeed, Gang of Four were a band of contrasts. For example, they signed with a major label (EMI) who also made defense equipment, but shouted politically charged lyrics. They made a show of supposed socialism, but when it came time to make a record, King and Gill took the reins. Their grooves made their views easier to take, sure, but it also made their music irresistible. Their first album is rightly considered a classic; a decade ago, it got deluxe reissue treatment by Rhino/Warner Brothers and Rolling Stone included it in their top 500 records ever.
On the other hand, The Pop Group never enjoyed the same success. In a short existence, they released three records on indie labels; there wasn’t the same rush to sign them to a big deal. But musically, they raised the stakes from Gang of Four: the guitar and the rhythm just about vanished in a wave of dub-influenced bass. And the politics! Mark Stewart’s lyrics sounded like chants from North Korea: “We are all prostitutes / everyone has their price;” “There’s no antidote for her / I’ll exchange my life for her.”
Both bands splintered apart in the early 80s as Britain’s politics shifted radically to the right with Margaret Thatcher’s election and tensions in each band rose. But now, a good three decades later, both are releasing new albums almost back-to-back. And both make interesting cases of how bands change over the years.
These days, Gill is the remaining original member of Gang of Four. On the latest album What Happens Next, session musicians like Jon Finnigan are part of the band. The results are okay, but not what you’d expect from a band with this pedigree.
Generally, What Happens Next sounds polished, lacking the edge of their earlier work. Everything sounds clean, shiny and almost commercial. On songs like “Broken Talk,” the formula is vaguely the same – slashing guitar lines, funk-influenced basslines – but the music is less edgy and abrasive. It sounds like what it is: a bunch of people trying to sound like Gang of Four.
At times, I wondered what band they’re supposed to be. The ambient keyboards, the skittering drums, the relaxed vocals all seem out of place on a Gang of Four record. At times they reminded me a little of Massive Attack, at others U2 – right down to Gill’s guitar tone, which sounds suspiciously like The Edge’s.
Lyrically, the music packs less of a punch, too. On “Obey the Ghost,” they sing “Irony is a luxury,” but a couple songs later, they repeatedly sing “I would take anything… to be a first-world citizen.” I’m not what sure what to think: they’re being ironic even as they speak against it. Who do they think they are, David Foster Wallace? Or, God help me, Bono?
But maybe their sense of politics has gone adrift. Late in What Happens Next is “Graven Image,” where I got a vague sense that Gill’s taking aim at something, but I’m not sure what. Islamic extremism? Organized religion? Who knows. By album’s end, when he’s singing lines like “we made the laws to keep control / but in the end… a line of dead souls,” it felt like reading a high schooler’s political ramblings, played by a cover band.
I thought maybe I was being hard on them, so I went back and listened to Entertainment! right after listening to What Happens Next and it was night and day: clanging guitars, shouted slogans, dynamic basslines, and absolutely no polish, no gloss. If the title’s a question, the answer is “not very much.”
Meanwhile, The Pop Group is releasing a short, six-track EP, Citizen Zombie. Unlike the Gang, they’ve mostly kept close to their roots while improving in some respects. It was a pleasant surprise!
Citizen Zombie opens with the title cut, where singer Mark Stewart lets rip over screeching guitars and a thundering bassline,. These guys have always been open with their cynicism and distain, so it’s not a shocker when the “Citizen Zombie” of the title track is you, the listener, with “your factory formed opinion.”
Granted, his writing isn’t quite as pointed as it used to be either. “We are legion!” he shouts at the beginning of “Nowhere Girl,” using a line so stale I hope he didn’t break it. And let’s be real, did anyone who knows this band think a song called “The Immaculate Deception” wasn’t going to be a polemic against organized religion. “Instead of a cure, the disease of religion,” Stewart sings.
But musically, The Pop Group is as dissonant and unpredictable as ever. Songs lurch into distorted guitars and funky basslines. Songs like “Mad Truth” are as catchy as anything they’ve ever done, even as Stewart’s singing morphes into an echoed scream. And “S.O.P.H.I.A.” is surprisingly good, a catchy slab of post-punk funk.
Those two tracks show the difference between the “new” Pop Group and the “new” Gang of Four: The Pop Group is just as energetic as their old stuff, only sounding a little more modern. The guitars still swirl, the bass still thumps, and Stewart’s singing is really more shouting than anything. They haven’t really changed their formula, but they’re also not recreating the same music, either.
It’s easy for older bands to fall into the trap of becoming their own cover band: just look at groups like Collective Soul, who still tour casinos and bang out the familiar hits. And it’s not always popular to evolve: just look at the backlash The Pixies received when Frank Black dared to write new material. There’s a fine line between being true to yourself and being the person your fans want you to be. It’s a hard one to define, but I think these two albums show approximately where it lies.
For Gang of Four, their evolution comes at a price: Gill has essentially turned the band into a solo vehicle, taking his particular spin on the music and going with it. It’s sometimes interesting, but without the involvement of the band’s three other founders, it doesn’t quite reflect what one expects from a Gang of Four record. Their old records had a palpable energy that came from an interesting mix of soft and harsh, from grooves and dissonance, from their accessibility and their uncompromising attitudes. Now, they sound like one man getting his way and frankly, Andy Gill doesn’t seem to have anything interesting to say.
And for The Pop Group, their relative success comes from them all returning to their old band with knowledge of what both drew them apart and made them matter. Their approach is a little easier to digest, but the attitude and groove aren’t really that different. They’re still not for everybody, but their music isn’t as intentionally off-putting, either. Which may actually hurt them in some eyes, but I think shows maturity. The Pop Group knows a good groove can help slip their message across to the unwary.
Gang of Four – What Happens Next: 1.5/5
The Pop Group – Citizen Zombie: 3/5