Sounds Of The Universe

  • Record Label: EMI
  • Release Date: Apr 21, 2009
Metascore
70

Generally favorable reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 28
  2. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. 60
    Sounds of the Universe comes on a bit softer, with less industrial guitar clang and more of chief songwriter Martin Gore's dreamy atmospherics.
  2. A less then stellar return, then, but a welcome one nevertheless.
  3. They might be no longer going through the motions, but those moves seem awfully familiar.
  4. Mojo
    60
    Even where Sounds Of The Universe resembles a self-help manual, it does so with commanding tunes and a ring of truth. [May 2009, p.102]
  5. They might not be affecting musical culture the way they did in their prime, but at least half of their latest effort is as strong as anything they've written.
  6. Q Magazine
    60
    It's hard not to feel disappointed by the sense that a band who have raised their game so many times have nowhere new to go. [May 2009, p.114]
  7. The result sounds like a time machine back to the Eighties.
  8. They tempt us with a strong first half and then dump us in a collection of tossed off b-sides.
  9. Even at its most imaginative, this is seamless Depeche Mode filler, music that could be made by any number of acolytes.
  10. Dave Gahan's songwriting has improved since 2007's solo "Hourglass," but this Sounds like a mundane midlife crisis.
User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 101 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 34
  2. Negative: 6 out of 34
  1. Nov 27, 2013
    8
    It's a a 'gray masterpiece' from Depeche Mode; "Sounds Of The Universe" it's like see the world trough the mirror, and don't understand whatsIt's a a 'gray masterpiece' from Depeche Mode; "Sounds Of The Universe" it's like see the world trough the mirror, and don't understand whats happens. Not so formidable like "Playing The Angel", but show the other side from the religious mind from Dave, Adan and Martin. Full Review »
  2. Mar 25, 2013
    3
    So, this is DM circa 2009. Well, as a DM fan since 1990 and having listened to and re-listend to every CD dozens of times since then I thinkSo, this is DM circa 2009. Well, as a DM fan since 1990 and having listened to and re-listend to every CD dozens of times since then I think that I have finally hit a wall. Is it me with the problem? I read so many good reviews of this and I scratch my head. There are almost no hooks here, the song structure is so loose that there is, at times, almost no recognizable pattern to certain songs. I knew that I was in trouble during the first minute as this annoying computer tone drones in your head for no apparent reason then finally leads into In Chains, one of the few decent tracks on the CD. They really should have made the first minute skipable (reminds me of the annoying opening of Freelove). Wrong, the lead single, was picked for obvious reasons, it is the only track with any clout and aformentioned structure, and it completely misleads listeners as to what the rest of the album sound like, as is is completely out of place in the otherwise atmospheric, formless sludge that follows it. After strong albums Exciter and Playing the Angel, this is supremely disapointing. With 4 years between each CD we will unfortunately have to wait quite a while now, with the hopes of a return to form. Full Review »
  3. Nov 29, 2012
    7
    A couple of good tracks (Wrong, In Sympathy) with some ok ones (Corrupt, Miles Away/The Truth Is, In Chains) and the rest forgettable. SomeA couple of good tracks (Wrong, In Sympathy) with some ok ones (Corrupt, Miles Away/The Truth Is, In Chains) and the rest forgettable. Some say the b-sides are better than the album tracks. Full Review »