From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V19 #70 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, September 25 2011 Volume 19 : Number 070 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: rem [michaeljbachman@comcast.net] Re: rem [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem ["craigie*" ] Re: rem [2fs ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem [2fs ] Re: rem [2fs ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:23:33 +0000 (UTC) From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Re: rem Other than Find The River and Nightswimming, they should have packed it and and closed shup op after Out Of Time. I almost gave up on them the horrible Green album, expecially when the Go-Betweens were kicking their butts as the opening act during the 1989 Green tour. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "kevin studyvin" To: "John B. Jones" Cc: "Bret" , "Snakesmaniax" Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:44:21 PM Subject: Re: rem On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM, John B. Jones wrote: > I'm hoping that one of the byproducts of this is more RH & The Venus 3 > albums! > > Ditto! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:40:41 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: rem - -- michaeljbachman@comcast.net is rumored to have mumbled on 24. September 2011 13:23:33 +0000 regarding Re: rem: > Other than Find The River and Nightswimming, they should have packed it > and and closed shup op after Out Of Time. I almost gave up on them the > horrible Green album, expecially when the Go-Betweens were kicking their > butts as the opening act during the 1989 Green tour. I disagree on all counts, of course :) I was already a Go-Betweens fan and was really looking forward to their show, but at least in D|sseldorf they were a huge disappointment. They seemed uncomfortable on such a big stage, and Lindy Morrison played maybe the worst drums I've ever heard live. She completely lost the rhythm, IIRC. That show was the first one in Europe where they didn't play clubs anymore (the Work Tour had still been quite small), and of course I was disappointed about that, but the actual show was pretty good, as fas as I can remember. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:36:18 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn < Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> wrote: > -- michaeljbachman@comcast.net is rumored to have mumbled on 24. September > 2011 13:23:33 +0000 regarding Re: rem: > > > Other than Find The River and Nightswimming, they should have packed it >> and and closed shup op after Out Of Time. I almost gave up on them the >> horrible Green album, expecially when the Go-Betweens were kicking their >> butts as the opening act during the 1989 Green tour. >> > Been thinking about it a bit, and I've concluded that, as much of a horrid hipster cliche as it is, their real legacy as a rock band is almost completely contained in those first five records, which in addition to being really great, also sort of redefine a new way to be a rock band. The problem is that that way of being a rock band wasn't ever going to work when blown up to stadium sizes, so from there on out, totally aside from signing to a major label or whatever, there was going to be trouble. Commencing with Green (well, sort of on Document, but Document is so focused that this doesn't matter) they tried to actually wrestle with the idea of being a "big" rock band, which, unlike U2, they really weren't built to be; they were just too weird. Which is why that record falls flat: it has all these grand gestures right next to these prototypes for that strange intimate chamber-pop they went on to develop on the next two records. And those ones work really well; the fact that they were popular is still hard to explain (it's often cited that "Losing My Religion" is a really unlikely hit for so many reasons that I still can't parse why the frat boys and sorority chicks loved it so much), but they're sort of outside the realm of R.E.M. as a rock band. They weren't built for touring or fist-pumping and didn't have those big drums or crunchy guitars that never really sounded "right" on R.E.M. records. So those little big records, while they're milestones in a sense, are anomalies, bizarre strategies to deal with popularity that for some reason connected. The script really got lost when they "returned" to rocking, because the rock landscape had changed so much in the intervening years. Like a lot of the college rock crowd they'd gotten so much notice for influencing the "grunge" thing that they oddly felt beholden to imitate it and it was a poor fit. From there on out, exacerbated by Bill leaving, R.E.M. seemed to be casting about for a way to reconnect with what made them "big", when being "big" was the thing that served them least well. I think that at any time, commencing with Monster, they could have made a record that sounded basically like Reckoning (think Accelerate with the overdrive dialed down and a few more 12-strings on speed) and found themselves back in the good graces of the people who mattered, but they were too obstinate for that. So instead we got a few more scattered moments of greatness on which nobody can agree (for me it's New Adventures which is a flat-out classic, and the much-derided Up, about which few agree with me, and Accelerate is holding up well especially considering the dire depths of its prececessor) on the road to this whimper-not-a-bang ending. The sad thing, and one that I can't recall having heard before, is that the breakup seems not to have given cause for celebrating the band, but rather finally given a single point in time for a ton of people to say "Thank God, I hated them". The haters seem to be from two camps, one being the old-time fans who felt, at one time or another, utterly betrayed by the band and were in a rush to top each other for credibility by saying when they gave up, and then the more mainstream people who hated them for being wussy and poppy in the cow-vocal-and-Sabbath-riff '90s. Most of this latter group probably can't tell R.E.M. from Live, Gin Blossoms, Toad the Wet Sprocket or maybe even Hootie. Those people I can't even talk to, really. But I guess my overall point is best illustrated by dialing up live clips of the band over the years: throughout the IRS years they're just unbelievably amazing, and as often as not they seem to be so focused that they aren't even aware of the audience except for as something really abstract. Then that goes away. Except for every once in a while, and those moments were the one that made it worth still going to an R.E.M. show in the later years, even if you weren't sure the band themselves appreciated them. It's sort of weird as an audience member to be hoping for the moment when the band starts completely ignoring you, but for the people who really loved and understood R.E.M. from early, it's kind of the only thing that makes sense... I know that it informs the way I watch other bands, too, and I for one feel oddly enriched by it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:49:12 +0100 From: "craigie*" Subject: Re: rem yeah. what Rex said. (Well done, sir!) c* > > On 24 September 2011 17:36, Rex Broome wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn < >> Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> wrote: >> >> > -- michaeljbachman@comcast.net is rumored to have mumbled on 24. >> September >> > 2011 13:23:33 +0000 regarding Re: rem: >> > >> > >> > Other than Find The River and Nightswimming, they should have packed it >> >> and and closed shup op after Out Of Time. I almost gave up on them the >> >> horrible Green album, expecially when the Go-Betweens were kicking >> their >> >> butts as the opening act during the 1989 Green tour. >> >> >> > >> Been thinking about it a bit, and I've concluded that, as much of a horrid >> hipster cliche as it is, their real legacy as a rock band is almost >> completely contained in those first five records, which in addition to >> being >> really great, also sort of redefine a new way to be a rock band. The >> problem is that that way of being a rock band wasn't ever going to work >> when >> blown up to stadium sizes, so from there on out, totally aside from >> signing >> to a major label or whatever, there was going to be trouble. >> >> Commencing with Green (well, sort of on Document, but Document is so >> focused >> that this doesn't matter) they tried to actually wrestle with the idea of >> being a "big" rock band, which, unlike U2, they really weren't built to >> be; >> they were just too weird. Which is why that record falls flat: it has all >> these grand gestures right next to these prototypes for that strange >> intimate chamber-pop they went on to develop on the next two records. >> >> And those ones work really well; the fact that they were popular is still >> hard to explain (it's often cited that "Losing My Religion" is a really >> unlikely hit for so many reasons that I still can't parse why the frat >> boys >> and sorority chicks loved it so much), but they're sort of outside the >> realm >> of R.E.M. as a rock band. They weren't built for touring or fist-pumping >> and didn't have those big drums or crunchy guitars that never really >> sounded >> "right" on R.E.M. records. So those little big records, while they're >> milestones in a sense, are anomalies, bizarre strategies to deal with >> popularity that for some reason connected. >> >> The script really got lost when they "returned" to rocking, because the >> rock >> landscape had changed so much in the intervening years. Like a lot of the >> college rock crowd they'd gotten so much notice for influencing the >> "grunge" >> thing that they oddly felt beholden to imitate it and it was a poor fit. >> From there on out, exacerbated by Bill leaving, R.E.M. seemed to be >> casting >> about for a way to reconnect with what made them "big", when being "big" >> was >> the thing that served them least well. I think that at any time, >> commencing >> with Monster, they could have made a record that sounded basically like >> Reckoning (think Accelerate with the overdrive dialed down and a few more >> 12-strings on speed) and found themselves back in the good graces of the >> people who mattered, but they were too obstinate for that. So instead we >> got a few more scattered moments of greatness on which nobody can agree >> (for >> me it's New Adventures which is a flat-out classic, and the much-derided >> Up, >> about which few agree with me, and Accelerate is holding up well >> especially >> considering the dire depths of its prececessor) on the road to this >> whimper-not-a-bang ending. >> >> The sad thing, and one that I can't recall having heard before, is that >> the >> breakup seems not to have given cause for celebrating the band, but rather >> finally given a single point in time for a ton of people to say "Thank >> God, >> I hated them". The haters seem to be from two camps, one being the >> old-time >> fans who felt, at one time or another, utterly betrayed by the band and >> were >> in a rush to top each other for credibility by saying when they gave up, >> and >> then the more mainstream people who hated them for being wussy and poppy >> in >> the cow-vocal-and-Sabbath-riff '90s. Most of this latter group probably >> can't tell R.E.M. from Live, Gin Blossoms, Toad the Wet Sprocket or maybe >> even Hootie. Those people I can't even talk to, really. >> >> But I guess my overall point is best illustrated by dialing up live clips >> of >> the band over the years: throughout the IRS years they're just >> unbelievably >> amazing, and as often as not they seem to be so focused that they aren't >> even aware of the audience except for as something really abstract. Then >> that goes away. Except for every once in a while, and those moments were >> the one that made it worth still going to an R.E.M. show in the later >> years, >> even if you weren't sure the band themselves appreciated them. It's sort >> of >> weird as an audience member to be hoping for the moment when the band >> starts >> completely ignoring you, but for the people who really loved and >> understood >> R.E.M. from early, it's kind of the only thing that makes sense... I know >> that it informs the way I watch other bands, too, and I for one feel oddly >> enriched by it. >> > > > > -- > first things first, but not necessarily in that order... > > I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively > packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... > > Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc (the motto of the Addams Family: "We > gladly feast on those who would subdue us") > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc (the motto of the Addams Family: "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:25:26 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem Gotta agree with Rex here. Very nice job. To which I'd only that, given the enormous impact of their first several albums, no matter *what* they did afterwards, it was bound to be a letdown. It's like, if the Beatles had reunited, there's no way they could possibly have lived up to expectations... That said, and while agreeing that "big" doesn't play to the band's strengths, I think that on several tracks they found ways of making it work pretty well. Certainly, Warner-era "big" tracks rock more convincingly than, say, their cover of "Toys in the Attic" (or, uh, "Burning Hell"), which causes you to say, oh, uh...the rocking is not really what these guys are about, is it. So I do give them some credit there. I do think part of their problem stemmed, ironically, from one of their strengths: they did not want to merely repeat themselves. So I think that at several points, you can nearly hear the band going "No - we cannot have a Rick 12-string arpeggio here, and we can't have Mike interweave a second vocal line with Michael's lead vocal...that's just too 'R.E.M...." and find the songs weakened by their refusal to do what they do well. That "Imitation of Life" is the best song on Reveal, the song on Reveal that the band didn't originally want on Reveal, and the song on Reveal that sounds most like classic R.E.M....well, that about says it re Reveal. (My impression is that by Around the Sun, there was just no agreement within the band on direction...I've heard variously it was Mills & Stipe vs. Buck on sorta "adult-contemporary" vs. "rock," and Stipe vs. Mills & Buck on, uh, wimpy new-age lyrics vs. obscure songs about trees and railroads. Or something like that. Anyway, I'm glad Accelerate and (to a slightly lesser degree) Collapse into Now exist - they're focused, solid, and feature some pretty good songs. If they were a new band, I'd have said, hey, this is pretty interesting...I wonder how they'll develop. Oh - and completely seconding the nothing to say to people who think they're only the band who did Out of Time and Automatic... and seem unaware of the IRS catalog... On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rex Broome wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn < > Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> wrote: > > > -- michaeljbachman@comcast.net is rumored to have mumbled on 24. > September > > 2011 13:23:33 +0000 regarding Re: rem: > > > > > > Other than Find The River and Nightswimming, they should have packed it > >> and and closed shup op after Out Of Time. I almost gave up on them the > >> horrible Green album, expecially when the Go-Betweens were kicking their > >> butts as the opening act during the 1989 Green tour. > >> > > > Been thinking about it a bit, and I've concluded that, as much of a horrid > hipster cliche as it is, their real legacy as a rock band is almost > completely contained in those first five records, which in addition to > being > really great, also sort of redefine a new way to be a rock band. The > problem is that that way of being a rock band wasn't ever going to work > when > blown up to stadium sizes, so from there on out, totally aside from signing > to a major label or whatever, there was going to be trouble. > > Commencing with Green (well, sort of on Document, but Document is so > focused > that this doesn't matter) they tried to actually wrestle with the idea of > being a "big" rock band, which, unlike U2, they really weren't built to be; > they were just too weird. Which is why that record falls flat: it has all > these grand gestures right next to these prototypes for that strange > intimate chamber-pop they went on to develop on the next two records. > > And those ones work really well; the fact that they were popular is still > hard to explain (it's often cited that "Losing My Religion" is a really > unlikely hit for so many reasons that I still can't parse why the frat boys > and sorority chicks loved it so much), but they're sort of outside the > realm > of R.E.M. as a rock band. They weren't built for touring or fist-pumping > and didn't have those big drums or crunchy guitars that never really > sounded > "right" on R.E.M. records. So those little big records, while they're > milestones in a sense, are anomalies, bizarre strategies to deal with > popularity that for some reason connected. > > The script really got lost when they "returned" to rocking, because the > rock > landscape had changed so much in the intervening years. Like a lot of the > college rock crowd they'd gotten so much notice for influencing the > "grunge" > thing that they oddly felt beholden to imitate it and it was a poor fit. > From there on out, exacerbated by Bill leaving, R.E.M. seemed to be > casting > about for a way to reconnect with what made them "big", when being "big" > was > the thing that served them least well. I think that at any time, > commencing > with Monster, they could have made a record that sounded basically like > Reckoning (think Accelerate with the overdrive dialed down and a few more > 12-strings on speed) and found themselves back in the good graces of the > people who mattered, but they were too obstinate for that. So instead we > got a few more scattered moments of greatness on which nobody can agree > (for > me it's New Adventures which is a flat-out classic, and the much-derided > Up, > about which few agree with me, and Accelerate is holding up well especially > considering the dire depths of its prececessor) on the road to this > whimper-not-a-bang ending. > > The sad thing, and one that I can't recall having heard before, is that the > breakup seems not to have given cause for celebrating the band, but rather > finally given a single point in time for a ton of people to say "Thank God, > I hated them". The haters seem to be from two camps, one being the > old-time > fans who felt, at one time or another, utterly betrayed by the band and > were > in a rush to top each other for credibility by saying when they gave up, > and > then the more mainstream people who hated them for being wussy and poppy in > the cow-vocal-and-Sabbath-riff '90s. Most of this latter group probably > can't tell R.E.M. from Live, Gin Blossoms, Toad the Wet Sprocket or maybe > even Hootie. Those people I can't even talk to, really. > > But I guess my overall point is best illustrated by dialing up live clips > of > the band over the years: throughout the IRS years they're just unbelievably > amazing, and as often as not they seem to be so focused that they aren't > even aware of the audience except for as something really abstract. Then > that goes away. Except for every once in a while, and those moments were > the one that made it worth still going to an R.E.M. show in the later > years, > even if you weren't sure the band themselves appreciated them. It's sort > of > weird as an audience member to be hoping for the moment when the band > starts > completely ignoring you, but for the people who really loved and understood > R.E.M. from early, it's kind of the only thing that makes sense... I know > that it informs the way I watch other bands, too, and I for one feel oddly > enriched by it. > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:12:18 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, 2fs wrote: > > That said, and while agreeing that "big" doesn't play to the band's > strengths, I think that on several tracks they found ways of making it work > pretty well. Certainly, Warner-era "big" tracks rock more convincingly > than, > say, their cover of "Toys in the Attic" (or, uh, "Burning Hell"), which > causes you to say, oh, uh...the rocking is not really what these guys are > about, is it. So I do give them some credit there. > That's true enough, although I'd listen to "Burning Hell" a thousand times before voluntarily spinning "Band and Blame" again, because at least the former has no pretensions of being "good". I think your phrase "found ways of making it work" speaks volumes, though. As the band got bigger they had to make concessions to that bigness, and that project at times took precedence over natural evolution... there really is no reason for "Pop Song 89" other than as a response to the context of the band's place in the times, which is almost always the most boring and alienatingly self-involved possible thing out of which to make art. It probably can't be overstated how ill-served that band was by the constant comparisons to U2, who just really were made for bigness: both bands had the live fervor and melodic gifts to rise to the tops of their respective scenes (and had semi-compatible lineups), but otherwise never should have been compared as much as they were/are. > > I do think part of their problem stemmed, ironically, from one of their > strengths: they did not want to merely repeat themselves. So I think that > at > several points, you can nearly hear the band going "No - we cannot have a > Rick 12-string arpeggio here, and we can't have Mike interweave a second > vocal line with Michael's lead vocal...that's just too 'R.E.M...." and find > the songs weakened by their refusal to do what they do well. Yep. Leaving them to try to do other things, out of which the chamber-pop thing somehow, briefly, clicked. What's also kind of interesting in hindsight about the OOT/AFTP is that the handful of "rock-ish" songs scattered about those two records are fairly in line with the IRS records... the drums not overloud, the guitar not distractingly overdriven as on the preceding Green and the subsequent Monster, the Mills harmonies intact. It was like a brief idyll when not trying too hard and evolving naturally actually paid off. I never really said anything about it, but one of the first things that struck me about even as late a record as "Collapse" was the unnecessarily "big" production, the giant-ass drums and blaring guitar, when the Buck/Rieflin pairing in the V3, both on record and live, was anything but ham-fisted. Inevitably, that second song would come on, and I'd think, come on, I know from firsthand experience that both of those guys have more subtlety and humor in them than to really *want* to be playing this, and it's probably time to let go of all of these weird perceived obligations and go do something else that makes you, like, you know, happy or something. I guess I was basically right. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:28:56 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem > That's true enough, although I'd listen to "Burning Hell" a thousand times > before voluntarily spinning "Band and Blame" again, because at least the > former has no pretensions of being "good". > By which you mean "Bang and Blame"...but, uh, my pal Sigmund enjoys your typo anyway. > I do think part of their problem stemmed, ironically, from one of their >> strengths: they did not want to merely repeat themselves. So I think that >> at >> several points, you can nearly hear the band going "No - we cannot have a >> Rick 12-string arpeggio here, and we can't have Mike interweave a second >> vocal line with Michael's lead vocal...that's just too 'R.E.M...." and >> find >> the songs weakened by their refusal to do what they do well. > > > Yep. Leaving them to try to do other things, out of which the chamber-pop > thing somehow, briefly, clicked. What's also kind of interesting in > hindsight about the OOT/AFTP is that the handful of "rock-ish" songs > scattered about those two records are fairly in line with the IRS records... > the drums not overloud, the guitar not distractingly overdriven as on the > preceding Green and the subsequent Monster, the Mills harmonies intact. It > was like a brief idyll when not trying too hard and evolving naturally > actually paid off. > Although (and I think we just differ here) I rather like Monster - it seemed like Stipe, at least, was enjoying his Bono-like rock star/faux rock star glittering camp idol - and as a singer he could make that work. I don't know which way it ran, but Buck's decision to use tremolo and distortion (as opposed to just distortion) is something that, weirdly, critics seemed to miss, in that they kept yelling "grunge!" (re distortion) w/o noting that that *particular* sound Buck used on most of that record was unlike pretty much anything the grungesters were doing (possible exception Mudhoney, who were always a bit more garage/psych-y than most grunge bands anyway...) > > I never really said anything about it, but one of the first things that > struck me about even as late a record as "Collapse" was the unnecessarily > "big" production, the giant-ass drums and blaring guitar, when the > Buck/Rieflin pairing in the V3, both on record and live, was anything but > ham-fisted. Inevitably, that second song would come on, and I'd think, come > on, I know from firsthand experience that both of those guys have more > subtlety and humor in them than to really *want* to be playing this, and > it's probably time to let go of all of these weird perceived obligations and > go do something else that makes you, like, you know, happy or something. > Interesting - although (playing devil's advocate (cue Simpsons ref)) one could conceivably argue that, no, they were doing what they really wanted to do in R.E.M., while what they did w/Robyn was as sidemen, doing what Robyn wanted them to do...but despite the nominal leader/sideman opposition, the music, overall, argues in your direction, not my devilish pinball one. Anyway - it'll be interesting to see what those guys do now. Both Mills and Buck are pretty busy anyway - and I said somewhere that I actually thought the odds were only about 50/50 that Stipe would do music rather than more film and art...possibly even acting (I just have this notion that he wants to act - no idea why). Of course, what would a Stipe solo album sound like? (That question is - although Rex probably doesn't care much, not being a Smiths fan - almost exactly like the question "what would a Morrissey solo album sound like?" in the wake of the Smiths' breakup...and yet, as we know, whether you like it or not Morrissey went on to have a bonafide career...whereas Marr became a near-invisible sideman, contrary to all expectations at the time...so who knows, maybe Stipe will end up making a go of the music unexpectedly...we'll see. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:29:41 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Rex Broome wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, 2fs wrote: >> >> That said, and while agreeing that "big" doesn't play to the band's >> strengths, I think that on several tracks they found ways of making it >> work >> pretty well. Certainly, Warner-era "big" tracks rock more convincingly >> than, >> say, their cover of "Toys in the Attic" (or, uh, "Burning Hell"), which >> causes you to say, oh, uh...the rocking is not really what these guys are >> about, is it. So I do give them some credit there. >> > > That's true enough, although I'd listen to "Burning Hell" a thousand times > Oh - and I love "Burning Hell"...but it's pretty clearly a parody, not hte real thing... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 21:33:03 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, 2fs wrote: > > Although (and I think we just differ here) I rather like Monster - it > seemed > like Stipe, at least, was enjoying his Bono-like rock star/faux rock star > glittering camp idol - and as a singer he could make that work. I don't > know > which way it ran, but Buck's decision to use tremolo and distortion (as > opposed to just distortion) is something that, weirdly, critics seemed to > miss, in that they kept yelling "grunge!" (re distortion) w/o noting that > that *particular* sound Buck used on most of that record was unlike pretty > much anything the grungesters were doing (possible exception Mudhoney, who > were always a bit more garage/psych-y than most grunge bands anyway...) > That and a bunch of the other guitar sounds on Monster are interestingly experimental, I'll give you that. And playing-wise I don't think those guys could have made, or would ever have wanted to make, a Soundgarden record or similar. I seem to recall that they had a rule for the record that nothing "natural" (acoustic, maybe excepting drums) would be on it, which is an interesting conceit but a pretty limiting one for the kind of band they were. Stipe did the glam thing okay, but then I think he nailed it better in one song ("Wake-Up Bomb") on New Adventures than on the whole of Monster. I'm sure the archives for this list contain my theory that Monster breaks down into three EPs in a row, the first one of which is sort of poppy but edgy and the last one of which is difficult but rewarding. The middle one totally sucks. > > Interesting - although (playing devil's advocate (cue Simpsons ref)) one > could conceivably argue that, no, they were doing what they really wanted > to > do in R.E.M., while what they did w/Robyn was as sidemen, doing what Robyn > wanted them to do...but despite the nominal leader/sideman opposition, the > music, overall, argues in your direction, not my devilish pinball one. > Yeah, I take it mainly from the music side. What Buck has done with Robyn (and others) is a pretty direct extension of the early R.E.M. sound, and it's out of the limelight enough to seem like it might be more what he wants to do, whereas his primary band had become big enough to come with baggage. Who knows which members were more keen on the "never repeating themselves" thing, but it's interesting that while Buck could have gone on to guest on Mudhoney records, he's tended to position himself in folkish roles and as a sideman/cowriter for singer-songwriters. Gotta say something. > > Of course, what would a Stipe solo album sound like? > (That question is - although Rex probably doesn't care much, not being a > Smiths fan - almost exactly like the question "what would a Morrissey solo > album sound like?" in the wake of the Smiths' breakup...and yet, as we > know, > whether you like it or not Morrissey went on to have a bonafide > career...whereas Marr became a near-invisible sideman, contrary to all > expectations at the time...so who knows, maybe Stipe will end up making a > go > of the music unexpectedly...we'll see. > Of course it might have been a different story if R.E.M. had broken up at the same time as The Smiths. Stipe might have done what Morrissey did then and created a record that basically sounded just like his old band (come to think of it, Ian Mac did pretty much the same thing). Now, though, I find that unlikely, partly as a result of all the musical experimentation he's been through since the late '80s... one would almost expect him to do something more in the realm of some of the electronic stuff he's guested on. I sort of agree, though, that I don't expect to hear much from him other than occasional guest shots and duets, probably on stuff that's not especially that interesting to me. But who knows. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V19 #70 *******************************