On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Michel Battaglia wrote:
quoted 6 lines (1) Duran Duran didn't stand for anything in the eighties. They were a> > (1) Duran Duran didn't stand for anything in the eighties. They were a
> > pop music band. They still are. Their output is fluff. (I happen to like
> > them, but I like pop-music-fluff sometimes.)
>
> I disagree with this - pop fluff, yes, but they were of a group of bands
> who epitomize eighties excess.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "eighties excess". To me, their
early work epitomizes the post-Roxy/post-Ultavox "New Romantic" pop
movement. And the music videos they appeared in were unsurpassed at the
time, helped define what pop music video is (for better or worse), and
still stand as excellent examples. What they stood for is pop, art,
pop-art, art-pop, and fashion. Unfortunately they haven't fulfilled the
promise that _Rio_ made.
I would not be at all surprised to find out that they were into the
Sugarhill thing when it first happened. I'll buy the covers album (_Thank
You_, due in April I believe). Any which way, I'm sure their motivation
was to give due respect to the various originators. Frankly, they're not
big enough anymore to be self-important hypocrites, so they must be doing
it out of the love of the music.