Re: New REM is streaming at NPR

NPR is streaming the new REM album.

[www.npr.org]

I'll hold off til next week when I can pick it up on disc. Not anything I want to listen to while sitting at a computer at work. REM is one of the few bands left that I still try to make an event of getting the new album, even if the albums themselves haven't always been event worthy.

I am doing the same thing, Breno - holding out for the hard copy, that is. I am feeling pretty excited about this new album for whatever reason. They havent really justified excitement for their new records since 1996, but I feel it nonetheless. RS gave it only 4 stars instead of their automatic 5 stars for old-fogey bands, but to me that's actually a good sign. Supposedly there is lots of mandolin, and lots of Peter Buck musicianship -- always a good thing -- even if Michael Stipe is coming up with shit song titles like "Rediscoverer" and "Mine Smell Like Honey". That last title gives me the creeps. <shudder>



Post Edited (03-02-11 14:01)

Not bad at all. Will be glad to pick it up later on. And "Mine Smell Like Honey" is probably the most REM-ish song on it -- very nice. A little bland, personality-wise, but sounds like they're having a lot of fun, just like Accelerate.

Quote

RS gave it only 4 stars instead of their automatic 5 stars for old-fogey bands, but to me that's actually a good sign.

Any truth to the rumor that "Automatic For The Old Farts" was the working title?

Lots of mandolin. Imagine that.

...

I owe R.E.M. a debt that can never be repaid. They helped provide a worthwhile soundtrack to my teens and twenties. That is why I still buy the reissues of the old IRS stuff. The newer efforts have been tastefully executed, if not especially inspired (or inspiring).

...

Oh yeah. Lately, mine smell like chipolte and carne asada.

*POOT*

Ole!

This board is going to turn their collective wrath on me but I haven't really liked any REM release at all since Green.

To me they became too easy to spot and I didn't buy their "art" any more - Monster was their "glam" record, AFTP was their "serious" record, etc. It all just seemed so contrived and artificial to me.

I think they stopped being great after Reckoning but they were still damn good through Green.

After that, I just don't get it. AFTP would be on my shortlist of the most overrated albums ever made. Just a morose, sapfest (interesting note : The TP entry calls it a masterpiece).



Post Edited (03-03-11 19:17)

Quote

This board is going to turn their collective wrath on me but I haven't really liked any REM release at all since Green.

I'm with you 1,000,000%.

I have a mix CD that is based on the premise that the band died in a plane crash on their way back from inking the WB deal. It rocks.

...

Plus, "The Wrong Child" was the first R.E.M. song that made me physically cringe, so Green wasn't a complete winner for me at the time anyway. I suppose you could edit that tune out and add a B-side ("Ghost Rider" perhaps?) to the mix and try real hard to pretend that it was all cool.

I liked a handful of tunes off Out of Time, but by then I was busy nodding off to Spacemen 3 and such. I was casually listening to R.E.M. after that, but "Everybody Hurts" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

...

So no wrath from me. No wrath at all.

Damn, I think "The Wrong Child" is brilliant. My Dad used to scream to turn off the radio when that song came on my boombox though. Maybe you're all right.

"I mean, the college kids today speak of them the way we speak of Foreigner and Loverboy."

Who is this "we" you're speaking of?

Also, to use the words of Gene Siskel when someone said The Valachi Papers was better than The Godfather, "You're wrong."

Certainly, REM isn't as good as band as The Beatles. Nor The Rolling Stones, pre-Goats Head Soup. However, The Rolling Stones comparison is apt -- REM hasn't made a great album since Automatic. And it hadn't made a great one before that since Document, and hadn't made a great album before that since Reckoning. But the overall material they put out over that span of time is damned comparable to the best rock and roll ever. I don't listen to new REM albums because I want a taste of what I liked back then, I don't expect my artists to continually regurgitate old ground. What I want is material with substance -- substance that compares to their earlier work, where there was passion, drive, intelligence, and damned magic.

I can argue that there are bands that shouldn't change, because the change did not do them good-- such as REM, with Monster -- but I don't want them to give up trying. The idea that they are some sort of ultra-audience friendly band, such as Loverboy or Foreigner, doesn't work for one reason: those two bands only put out shit for consumption. And I mean shit. Aside from the speed and hook(s) for "Working for the Weekend" and their amazingly appropriate use in Wet Hot American Summer, was that band ever necessary? Same with Foreigner. They could never have existed, and rock and roll would have been fine without them.

But REM? Damned important. Were some bands better at doing what REM did? Maybe. Let's Active certainly had some great stuff, but REM wasn't all about smart jangle pop. The Soft Boys and Robyn Hitchcock made great, intentionally dark, weird pop, but REM wasn't all that. REM did all that, sometimes great -- Murmur -- sometimes not as great -- Fables. But with Monster, the difference is that they seemed to stop making music for the music's sake, and started making it to match their audience. They want loud guitar rock? Here we go. Now, we know that's not true -- Buck wanted a rock album to balance out Automatic's chamber pop, but it certainly seemed that way. And with that album, REM stopped being REM, and became an "Alternative" band.

I don't think they've ever recovered from that move. It certainly didn't get them any new fans, and older ones ran screaming from it, for the most part. I was one of them. It seemed like a huge drop in songwriting quality and -- the big one here -- meaning. Whether or not REM's stuff actually meant something, and many times it didn't mean anything but what you put into it, Monster made it seem like they didn't mean anything anymore, so they became just another band, putting out product. But that's also not true. Up has some experimental stuff on it that works all right, and Reveal has some great hooks. Their last two albums work for me because they seem like they're trying to get back to that "meaning something" bit I mentioned before. Sure, they can go in and pump something out, slap REM on it and it will get them some royalties, and sure, they can go in and mess around, but Accelerate and Collapse seem to be an attempt to put out something personal and of a higher overall quality level. But, as the saying goes, old fans have moved on, and new ones are few and far between.

So visualize a world without Loverboy or Foreigner, and I think you'll be fine. Think about one without REM, and fuck all, it would suck. REM is a great band because they did something important -- they showed that personal, intelligent, weird music could be worth more than just a cult audience. I mean, if the point is that people still listen to REM records because they're hoping to catch something that sounds like the REM they once liked, well, so be it. It depends on what that "once" was. For me, it's just a damned good album worth multiple listenings. And, unlike back in the day, I don't have the time to go looking for great albums anymore, they have to come to me. Sucks, but it's true -- I don't have the time or income anymore, and am more interested in stuff I missed than stuff I am missing. The people who think of REM as an "80's band" or just another arena band like those old bands Foreigner or Loverboy wouldn't have "gotten" them at the time, either.

Wow, Paganizer - you are being a real iconoclast today. Either your opinion of REM is irrationally negative or you're just being provative.

Sonic Youth are the greatest rock band in history based on longevity and overall quality in my opinion. Every album a B+ or above from 1986-2010 with lots of A+ 's in there.

To say that EinstÜrzende Neubauten, Mick Jones, The Damned, The Treepeople, Devo, David Kilgour, Leatherface, Meat Puppets, or Wire put out material exceeding REM's output over a 20+ year period is laughable. I could have included more artists you mentioned in that list, but wanted to stick to the noncontroversial ones.

Amen, Blasmo!

Also, I'm not critiquing your taste -- not at all. I love Automatic for the People, and you don't. What I'm disagreeing with is what you seem to be saying in your post -- possibly unintentionally, and it's my faulty understanding of it -- which is that Loverboy, Foreigner, and REM are the equivalent of Weezer and Matchbox 20 to people; bands that were considered hot at one time and aren't anymore. "Critically important" is the term you used. Please tell me when, other than Weezer and REM, any of those bands were critically relevant. *Culturally* relevant, certainly -- they sold lots, and American audiences do seem to equate "selling lots of records" with "greatness". But I can't imagine any critic worth his or her weight in VU records saying those bands were good -- enjoyable as ear fodder, maybe, but good? Ira likes Bryan Adams, but I doubt he would defend the man's critical oeuvre in the same way he might REM, per se. And Cheap Trick? A great band, to be sure, but aside from the second self-titled album, they haven't done anything really amazing since the first three records. But is any of their stuff really "Great", as opposed to just "Kick Ass" (a critical term)? "Surrender" certainly, but not much besides that. Again, apples and oranges as a comparison.

Maybe a better comparison to discuss REM comes from film -- Woody Allen. While he's made some good films since Crimes and Misdemeanors, he certainly hasn't made a great one since then. And for younger filmgoers, his name doesn't mean anything but that guy who sort of, kind of, married his own adopted daughter (he didn't, really. He never adopted her, which is like saying he only did something disgusting instead of something really fucked up). But critics keep looking because he once made great art, and might do it again. Younger filmgoers don't know about the amazing run of films he made in the 70's and 80's (and there are certainly clunkers (Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, I'm looking at you)) that earned him that reputation. Those of us who grew up with those films still talk about them because they were really good films. The same with REM. Whether or not they'll ever make anything as good as Murmur or have the same impact on popular culture isn't the point, anymore. The point is that now, they seem to be trying again, and REM trying is a hell of a lot better than most groups' entire output -- esp. Foreigner, Matchbox 20, and goddamned-ibly better than Loverboy.



Post Edited (03-04-11 11:38)

I have never been a huge REM fan, although I quite liked a lot of their early stuff. It did kind of shock me to notice that I haven't really cared much about anything they've released in well over two decades. Time flies when/as you get older . . . which is only partly the point.

Rock's element of defiance and individualism works as communicable truth even if trivialized by people merely posing as rebels or whose defiance amounts to little more than giving the finger to "everybody who thought we couldn't make it big!" And sometimes letting the public mistake youthful brio for principled iconoclasm is no great sin (and the line there may be blurry anyway), though over time that sparkle de-fizzes.

Still, the artists don't just lose their edge with age. Only a few of Paganizer's listed artists who've persevered over the decades with good-to-great work have done so with anything approaching the level of success and acceptance of REM. After years of growing dependence on big record deals/concert draws/music awards, that independence gets harder to maintain.

When Grace Slick sang "Up against the wall motherfucker" in the Airplane, I was sure she wasn't kidding. When in the Starship she sang "We built this city on rock and roll" all it meant to me was "We built our bank accounts on schlock and roll." I don't equate REM's lesser work with the Starship's utter tripe, and I'm not even sure they were telling themselves whoppers as huge as Slick might have tried to sell to herself, but a similar mechanism of wishful rationalization may have been at work.

P.S. For whatever it's worth, I listened to the NPR stream of the new REM album on and it sounded good. Enough to want to hear it again, for sure.

The odd thing is We Built This City was written by Bernie Taupin after Peter Wolf (the producer not the J Geils guy) brought him in. Wolf created Starship as much as Quincy created Michael's peak.

It's interesting to me that youthful brio is taken for principles but as time passes it then looks like the "blame" for this lies in the listener. (Why can't my parents see that Bowie really IS an alien here to save mankind from their wan? My rock stars were born heroes). Then you look back and realize there was no supracultural message aside from your own perception. Actually it's pretty cool - the power of an art that combines so many elements into a whole greater than the parts. But I guess Steve Allen figured that out a long time ago. (Wasn't he the guy that used to recite rock lyrics for non-contextual satire?). Anyway, if so, then we de-fiz the sparkle on our own. Hence fuel for the regenerative pop idol machine? Or maybe it's an illustrious way of saying youth only relates to youth.

"Think you're too big for your knickers, do ya? Think yours smell like honey, eh?"

Agreed. I was telling my boss about how my friends and I used to camp out for REM new releases and then get together to try and figure out what the hell Stipe was saying. It was like D&D for the rock critic set. That sort of fandom ended instantly, unfortunately, with Monster and then New Adventures. I've never given up on a band as fast as I did REM. I've listened to every REM album, and aside from Accelerate and individual songs off of the others -- and only 10-11 of those -- I was very disappointed, until Accelerate. And with that, it just seems more like a regaining of focus and intensity more than anything else. *That* said, I haven't revisited those other albums in years, so I'm sure this will lead somewhere...

I suggest trying the new Smithereens, too. Nice and bashy -- sounds like the old stuff.

> This board is going to turn their collective wrath on me but I haven't really liked any
> REM release at all since Green.

No wrath from me either, Mats. I don't agree with you quite as much as Kay does — in my case, I'd say, maybe 500,000 percent at most.

Much like Kay said, R.E.M. was a truly vital part of the soundtrack of my twenties. Come to think of it, Out of Time was the first R.E.M. album to be released after I turned thirty — the month after, if Wikipedia is correct. Coincidence? Of course it is. But it's a pretty fitting one.

I haven't loved any R.E.M. album since Green. I've found songs that I like on each of the band's post-Eighties discs, even Around the Sun (which the band members themselves have disowned). But as far as I can remember, I've never played any R.E.M. album released since Green twice in a row. That says it all right there.

So here's a question. Say a band has 3-4 great albums and 8-9 that are average or below. Can (or should) they be considered a great band? At what point do you consider the entire musical output and, for lack of a better term, give it an overall grade?

REM has followed a similar path to Cheap Trick in that their first handful of albums were great, followed by a steady decline to where the number of average-to-below albums outnumbered the good-to-great.

Is it too much to expect a band to sustain a good-to-great level for 20+ years? I realize this is all highly subjective, but I at least find it an interesting topic to discuss.

I think in general you rate a band or even a show by their highs, as opposed to taking an average. Everyone remembers Seinfeld being a fabulous sitcom. They forget that that the episodes post-1992 had Jump-The-Shark written large all over them. It's because the early episodes were SO fantastic, it burned a permanent impression in your brain. I think REM's first 8 albums were fantastic to great: Chronic Town, Murmur, Reckoning, Fables, Pageant, Document, Green, Out Of Time. That's a fucking unprecedented run. The Stones had only 5 consecutive great ones. Then you become rich and old and your drummer leaves and you go bald and have nothing else to say and you reach the end of your zeitgeist. That's just the way it is. REM had a great streak. I still hold out a tiny bit of hope they have one more great one in them, no matter how cynical y'all are.

I couldn't agree more with Paganizer and his anti-REM rant. Throwing REM in with Foreigner is completely appropriate.

Quote

I couldn't agree more with Paganizer and his anti-REM rant. Throwing REM in with Foreigner is completely appropriate.

Ouch!

I know it isn't exactly a Foreigner tune, but does anyone else remember reading the Rolling Stone article about how R.E.M. were covering "Midnight Blue" in their live set? I think that was during the media coverage of the "Lifes Rich Pageant" tour.

Sometimes a band tells it's own fortune.

Quote

The Stones had only 5 consecutive great ones. Then you become rich and old and your drummer leaves and you go bald and have nothing else to say and you reach the end of your zeitgeist.

Psst! It was the bassist that left the Stones, dude!

Quote

Is it too much to expect a band to sustain a good-to-great level for 20+ years? I realize this is all highly subjective, but I at least find it an interesting topic to discuss.

Highly subjective? Indeed, there are some who would try to tell you that the Grateful Dead were making great bootlegs (if not studio albums) for years. Man.

Quote

REM has followed a similar path to Cheap Trick in that their first handful of albums were great, followed by a steady decline to where the number of average-to-below albums outnumbered the good-to-great.

So does it follow that "Everybody Hurts" was R.E.M.'s "The Flame?"

Gawd, how I do loathe both of those songs. But if you made me choose between the two ... I'd go with the former. That would only be because I never held Cheap Trick up as semi-sacred. So hearing them at their very worst like that doesn't bother me as much.

Quote

So does it follow that "Everybody Hurts" was R.E.M.'s "The Flame?"

No, "The Flame" doesn't or didn't rock...but it does contain a very good Robin Zander vocal performance, that I've seen delivered exquisitely live. "Everybody Hurts" couldn't even claim that. Stipe's falsetto attempt is just plain sad.

Anyway, I'll answer my own rhetorical question. No, it isn't too much to expect good-to-great for two decades plus (The Church have done it, after all), but I suppose it's understandable if it doesn't happen.

No wrath from me either.
I hold them in the same esteem as Matchbox 20, Weezer, et al. and aside from the 1st single, Chronic Town, and the 2 LPs, I see no aesthetic difference between REM and any other generic, treacly, cloying mainstream. Is there one? I mean, the college kids today speak of them the way we speak of Foreigner and Loverboy.

Every release is a ploy for new fans buying highly predictable, generic stadium-corporate rock and old fans hoping for 20 seconds in a row that the band might slightly resemble their first few years. Tracks like "Fall on Me", "Losing My Religion", "Shiny Happy People", "(That's great it starts with an earthquake)", are the bad stadium rock of our generation. Makes you run out of a room as quickly as Bob Seger.
Or "We Built This City".
That's it, it's the Jefferson Airplane-to-Starship model for the 2000s.

True for many bands, though. It's amazing how many bands had one or two great albums in the 60s or 70s and (you wouldn't know it but) they still release titles (Uriah Heep, etc.). REM is the same, but from the early 80s and better marketed.

Quote

Can (or should) they be considered a great band?

No. But they can be considered a band who made 3 now-forgotten gems. One problem with REM, however is that you had to be there. Murmur and Reckoning were important in their day and will mean something nostalgically to those of a certain age but they're critically unimportant today.

Quote

Is it too much to expect a band to sustain a good-to-great level for 20+ years?

No. Expectations are what keep you interested. It's rare mostly because longevity itself is so challenging. Arguments can be made for Sonic Youth, Fall, even Stones (because they are held to the hardest standard). Some other 20-yr bands with recent good output that come to mind:
Mountain Goats
Bad Religion
EinstÜrzende Neubauten
Mick Jones (assuming Carbon/Silicon are basically BAD)
Bowie was only bad for 10 years
Neil Young (not imo, but I'll give this one to the fans)
Echo/McCulloch
Church
Costello (see Neil, above)
Damned
Morrissey
Rancid
Treepeople/BTS
Devo
Nirvana
(just kidding)
Dino jr.
Flaming Lips
Weddoes
Hitchcock
David Kilgour
Leatherface
Meat Puppets
Radiohead (are just about to hit the 20-yr mark)
Wire
YLT

Stones' 2 runs will never be matched but that's what happens when yr the 1st:
Aftermath>Buttons>Satanic Majesties> Beggars>Bleed>Sticky>Exile>Goats>IORR

Some Girls>Emotional>Tattoo

edit::yeah, I shouldn't add to an REM thread. I'm like whats-his-name with whats-her-names' album



Post Edited (03-23-11 02:38)

Whoo baby! After reading Pagan's post, I need a cigarette!

It's not a fair comparison because Starship had no original members from Airplane.

What's funny is I think I've actually typed the name 'Bob Seger' about ten times on various sites in the past coupla weeks and I have no idea how that suddenly became a yardstick. I must have heard him in a store or something and had bad music memories triggered.

I also give Costello a lot more room than I indicated. He does what he does and he's good at it. There's no expectation for him to remake Armed Forces.

I'm glad my writing has been compared to sex though. There's some bad sentence structure but sex can be like that. With dangling participles and overly modified vibrators vibrant modifiers.



Post Edited (03-23-11 02:39)

Quote

goddamned-ibly better

While other folks out there are adding Charlie Sheen-isms to their vocabulary, I shall be adding that one.

> I'm glad my writing has been compared to sex though. There's some bad sentence structure but
> sex can be like that.

Yes, and as I've heard some guys say, "Even when the sex is bad, it's still pretty good."

I won't put in much more, because Nose and Blasmo already said it so well. Extra props to Blas for his observation: A world without fake-rock would be a better place, whereas a world where there never had been an R.E.M. would be much poorer. For that truth alone, respect remains due.

Anyway, hearing someone compare R.E.M. to those fake-rock groups, even today, feels like a kick to my dangling participles. Perhaps R.E.M.'s post-'80s work hasn't measured up so well, but none of it actually diminishes the group's past achievements, any more than Voodoo Lounge or Bridges to Babylon tarnishes the Stones' classics. The fake-rock bands, on the other hand, produced nothing but tarnish itself.

>To say that EinstÜrzende Neubauten, Mick Jones, The Damned, The
>Treepeople, Devo, David Kilgour, Leatherface, Meat Puppets, or Wire put out
>material exceeding REM's output over a 20+ year period is laughable. I could
>have included more artists you mentioned in that list, but wanted to stick to
>the noncontroversial ones.

Actually, nobody said that. That topic wasn't about REM.
But now that you bring up that subject - REM hasn't put out anything above poor-to-middling since 1984. Those others all put out good-to-great recent stuff. So, yes, that's also valid. Laughable? I'd laugh at holding REM's last 20 years against any of those.

I just don't agree that REM is not bland, AOR stadium rock and don't see how that's any more iconoclastic than saying the same about Bon Jovi (besides, since when is snubbing mainstream MOR on an indie board iconoclastic?) . The difference between those two is their origins. Is that somehow enough to overlook the material? Is that why REM gets a pass for putting out crap after crap? Is popularity in this case overriding objectivity? The thing is, people DO consider their major label work to be not only their best, but it tops best-of lists all the time.

There are no really likable tracks on titles like Up, Reveal, or Around the Sun. Nothing worth a repeat listening; nothing I'd put on a mixdisc. I don't understand the appeal. Nothing stands out when you compare to the innovation offered by peers from those years. If a band is notable for their live appearances, even better; being able to play music is, IMO, more important than compositional skills. But REM stinks live, too. People get excited merely due to their popularity. If they were a band that didn't have stadium appeal in the 90s, you wouldn't be rushing out to buy their product, ignoring all of the current titles that are actually worth hearing.

My rant was ornery, facetious, silly, yes; but not disingenuous.
If I outright hated them (like you-know-who and you-know-what; though I wouldn't because they seem like great guys) I wouldn't spend time writing about them (I'd be off writing fake Rush lyrics). I do think there's room for fans to critically mount a defense.

I like some admitted dreck. I too have my closet faves (Blondie, American Hi-Fi, Barbara*). Admitted. To hold REM out as something they're clearly not...more than an arena act whose albums are a pop hit and some plodding, hookless filler...
-------
Speaking of which, great job, Blasmo. Yeah, Loverboy and Foreigner became a silly poke because they've been recently mentioned.

(and yes, if all I heard was Pink's latest, I suppose I, too, would conclude that it was the year's best. REM? well, you could certainly do worse; but then TP isn't about limiting ones' self to mediocrity)

"Critically unimportant" probably wasn't fair. I meant that if I were compiling a list of 80s releases for a young person, say, REM wouldn't make the cut. I don't feel they're important, critically, today, even if those 3 mean something to me personally. That is, they don't hold up like they once did.

The Cheap trick comparison is better than those I used.
------
I was highly influenced by REM. The first single and EP sounded so different at the time. More importantly on a personal level, Buck's licks were the first that I could hear and then learn, albeit chiefly because he used little-to-no signal modification. That sound's what made it stand out for me, more than Stipe's early mumbling. You have to play what you like to stay interested in an instrument and the fact that I can (or could) play their entire early catalog tells me how much I liked that early stuff. It was one of the few bands that my entire social group nabbed on to. I still recall really enjoying their '84 appearance at Macky Auditorium. I still remember Stipe ambling out and soloing Moon River. From the 2nd row I stared at Buck and learned how he played. Before the show, they were the only musicians for whom I've asked for an autograph (something I find silly but I must have been beside myself with glee). I camped for tix at their next area appearance and I even felt irritated if a DJ said "here's the new one by Rapid Eye Movement". Then it was all over.

They didn't look back while changing:
The production. Boyd, Gehman, Litt, none as good as Easter.
The lyrics.
The vox delivery.
The overall sound.
The failed style experiments.
And good gods, the songwriting and arrangements.
The live band went from a hungry, defiant indie band to an indifferent, contrived stadium act. The 1st 2 times I saw them they were great. The last few times I left a few songs in, highly disappointed. (Granted, having them follow Sonic Youth just wasn't fair).

But Buck's radical change in style was the saddest. Innovatively and stylistically, he peaked on the excellent "Wolves Lower". The guitar style and sound post-Reckoning doesn't involve the listener the way the early stuff does. He didn't expand, he regressed and even copped from hair bands. It was strange. I still play a Buck lick at least once a week. (But tellingly not a single one past 1984, even after learning a few.). I could be more descriptive if I better remembered the playing on titles like Fables, Pageant, Green, Monster but I'd have to actually listen to them again and life's too short for that.

Historically, REM is more notable for opening up the College Rock circuit. They didn't invent it, but they were in the right time and place and provided some of the pavement. Perhaps even a majority.

But today, if you grab your average REM purchaser, will they even be familiar with the first 3 (Chronic, Murm, Reck)? It was a pointed change.

And I haven't yet mentioned "One I Love".
Firrrrrrrrrrre.
Ouch.
---------------
U2 and REM, much as I dislike their music, appear to still excite some listeners. Only the gods knoow why, but, R e s p e c t [taps fist over twice heart, pours some OE in the gutter]. Albeit maybe it's just for not once having a model on the hood of a car in their vids and wearing spandex. (Wait, did Mills, Bono, or Buck ever wear spandex or leather chaps or date a supermodel? I can't remember. Does Stipe holiday with Sting?).
--------------
*kidding

edit::many typos



Post Edited (03-23-11 02:55)

I actually listened to it and it's very good. Not great, because they break no new ground. But it sounds like solid outtakes from Green, Document and Out of Time. And that isn't a bad thing. They sound young, and a little bit daring, which is refreshing after the last 15 years or so. Accelerate had some moments, but this is strong start to finish.
There are some real highs here, it's just so unfortunate that they fell so far and lost their base.
Good album!

Very well said, Pagan. (Illustriously said, even.) I saw a lot of my younger, more foolish self while reading your post. The biggest downside of that attitude, IMO, is that sometimes, youth only relates to youth (or perceived newness, at least) for its own sake. I guess that's one reason a lot of kids go back to classic/earlier rock, as they get older: they're checking out the music that their youthful tunnel vision had prevented them from considering.

A few years ago, a teenage neighbor of mine was really stoked to go see Tool at Red Rocks. When I learned that King Crimson was touring with Tool, I lent my neighbor a few CDs and encouraged her to get to Red Rocks early, to check out Fripp and the guys.

A couple days after the show, I saw my young neighbor and asked about it. "Best concert ever!" she said. Great. I asked if she'd caught King Crimson. "Oh yeah! They were really great. It was kinda like seeing The Who, though ... you know, because they're old."

When I read Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life, I loved how almost every band that merited a chapter always crossed paths with REM somewhere along the way, and the story was usually recounted with some amount of resignation. Well, I don't think anyone from Mudhoney or Beat Happening ever had any dealings with Stipe & Co.

I'm well past the point of arguing the merits of REM. They don't mean as much to me now as they did in 1985, but I appreciate them a lot more now than I did from 1993 to 2005.

Wha?

I'm only here for the alliteration.

It's like this: I used to think REM had made a series of calculated decisions in order to become one of the biggest bands in the world. A few years ago, it occurred to me that they've probably just been throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks their entire career.

I've listened to Collapse Into Now 4 or 5 times since picking it up yesterday. There are a couple of pretty good tunes–I like "It Happened Today" and "Alligator_Aviator_Autopilot_Antimatter" as much as anything they've done since Berry's departure. Overall, though, it's disappointing.

At the least, I was hoping for a more confident take on Accelerate. This isn't even close to that.

At least there's this:
[www.youtube.com]

Quote

"Alligator_Aviator_Autopilot_Antimatter"

"Birthday party_ cheesecake_ jellybean_ Boom?"

I bought the CD last night but didnt listen yet. As mentioned above, the song titles are seriously inauspicious. Mr Stipe appears to being having some issues with...ahem....content.

I still think it's pretty good, but the production is a bit dense and doesn't allow some of the details to poke through. I love "Mine Smell..." even with its horrible title. You're right, though, Stipe has certainly lost much of his muse. Too much repetition of older lyrical ideas, which is a shame, since Buck and Mills blast through this nicely. If they can get Stipe back to form, they might be able to knock another one out of the park, if they can keep Buck interested, which might not be likely.

the ew issue w/charlie sheens mug on the cover that i read on the crapper(i really hope SHEEN sues for SLANDER) advised me to download two (2) songs of their liking. but i don't know how to download.



Post Edited (03-14-11 18:43)

Try Around the Sun if you want to be profoundly depressed. Monster is a joy compared to that POS. But I also much prefer Up/Reveal to Green/Out of Time, and many would disagree with me on that.

I think the new one is pretty good. More well-rounded than Accelerate. I happen to think "I'm Gonna DJ" is the band's worst song, all-time. Incredibly lame attempt to have a live singalong. Literally makes me cringe.

I heard a guy on NPR's All Things Considered reviewing the album yesterday, 3-8-11. He said it was their best album in 16 1/2 years. Monster was released 16 1/2 years ago in September 1994.

Distrust anyone who doesnt agree Monster is their worst record. The day I heard that record I was reviewing it for my college radio station and was profoundly depressed. I havent put it on since that day.