From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V19 #71 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, September 26 2011 Volume 19 : Number 071 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: rem [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: rem - PS [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem [2fs ] Re: rem [Miles Goosens ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] RE: rem ["Brian Huddell" ] rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem [2fs ] Re: rem [2fs ] RE: rem ["Brian Huddell" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:38:02 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: rem >Gotta agree with Rex here. Very nice job. me too, though I'd probably say "their first five albums and only sporadically after that" - gotta give "Automatic for the people" some credit as an influential album. >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. The big difference between the REM split and the Smiths split (and the Beatles split, too) is it sounds as if it was amicable - Berry, Mills, and Stipe are all on speaking terms. It's quite possible he'll do what our man Mr Hitchcock has done since the Egyptians (and to an extent Neil Finn since Crowded House, for that matter) - record some quieter, more acoustic stuff solo, and bring together occasional roups of friends and like-minded individuals to record electric sets. And there'd be nothing to stop those groups of like-minded friends includiong the odd Berry or Mills if the music called for it. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand ============================================================ You talk to me as if from a distance And I reply with impressions chosen from another time (Brian Eno - "By this River") ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:44:28 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: rem - PS BTW, I'm very pleased to say that - looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REM_discography - it seems that New Zealand was one of the very few countries to be on the REM train since the outset (only country other than the US to send "Murmur" into the top 50). No real surprise since the Dunedin Sound was in full swing when their first couple of albums appeared here, and REM were tapping into the same musical motherlode. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand ============================================================ You talk to me as if from a distance And I reply with impressions chosen from another time (Brian Eno - "By this River") ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:41:45 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, wrote: > Gotta agree with Rex here. Very nice job. >> > > me too, though I'd probably say "their first five albums and only > sporadically after that" - gotta give "Automatic for the people" some credit > as an influential album. Oh, certainly. My odd little point was that the latter day successes like "Automatic" were in a way so anomalous as to be, if the term may be forgiven, "out of time", borne out of strategies to deal with success that in almost any other situation would have led, as Neil Young said, "to the ditch". I suppose it is influential, but that which it influenced was largely pretty dire... overwrought yet wispy folkish rock(esque) music by dudes who didn't seem to get what was good about R.E.M. to begin with. My take on its purveyors is that they may have just sensed an opportunity to get a piece of all that pussy that Stipe was letting go to waste if they could just seem as sensitive as him... > > > 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. >> > > The big difference between the REM split and the Smiths split (and the > Beatles split, too) is it sounds as if it was amicable - Berry, Mills, and > Stipe are all on speaking terms. > > It's quite possible he'll do what our man Mr Hitchcock has done since the > Egyptians (and to an extent Neil Finn since Crowded House, for that matter) > - record some quieter, more acoustic stuff solo, and bring together > occasional roups of friends and like-minded individuals to record electric > sets. And there'd be nothing to stop those groups of like-minded friends > includiong the odd Berry or Mills if the music called for it. > > James > -- > James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand > ==============================**============================== > You talk to me as if from a distance > And I reply with impressions chosen from another time > (Brian Eno - "By this > River") > ==============================**============================== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:18:46 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: rem On 11-09-24 12:36 , Rex Broome wrote: > > 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". I haven't experienced that; wasn't even aware that people had been saying that. Unfortunate. Though I wasn't a frequent listener in recent years, R.E.M. was probably the band that made me most excited about music. Through them, I knew there was this shared enjoyment, however small, with other people. And as a painfully, painfully shy late teen, that was some comfort. My tastes have definitely changed. I cranked up Green - which was probably my favourite R.E.M. album - on the way to the airport tonight, and I could barely listen to it. Horrid twee lyrics ("drifting off to lseep with your teeth in your mouth" - no and just no) and bloody awful production - loud where it shouldn't be, quiet when it really shouldn't be. I never saw them live, never joined a fan club or a listserve, but I'm glad they were around when I was. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:46:38 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > My tastes have definitely changed. I cranked up Green - which was > probably my favourite R.E.M. album - on the way to the airport tonight, > and I could barely listen to it. Horrid twee lyrics ("drifting off to > lseep with your teeth in your mouth" - no and just no) and bloody awful > production - loud where it shouldn't be, quiet when it really shouldn't be. Hee... I honestly don't have a problem with that line. There are certainly some production blunders on that record, though. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:48:42 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > My tastes have definitely changed. I cranked up Green - which was > probably my favourite R.E.M. album - on the way to the airport tonight, > and I could barely listen to it. Horrid twee lyrics ("drifting off to > lseep with your teeth in your mouth" - no and just no) and bloody awful > production - loud where it shouldn't be, quiet when it really shouldn't be. > > Well, I sorta assumed he was referring to a grandmother or something...not yr everyday person whose teeth are always in their mouth. But regardless, I like that song (and "Wrong Child") quite a bit - way better than the "we are going to pump...you...up!" rawkers on that record. (Most of which I can't remember one from the other...) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:07:02 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:48 PM, 2fs wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > >> >> >> My tastes have definitely changed. I cranked up Green - which was >> probably my favourite R.E.M. album - on the way to the airport tonight, >> and I could barely listen to it. Horrid twee lyrics ("drifting off to >> lseep with your teeth in your mouth" - no and just no) and bloody awful >> production - loud where it shouldn't be, quiet when it really shouldn't be. >> >> > Well, I sorta assumed he was referring to a grandmother or something...not > yr everyday person whose teeth are always in their mouth. But regardless, I > like that song (and "Wrong Child") quite a bit - way better than the "we are > going to pump...you...up!" rawkers on that record. (Most of which I can't > remember one from the other...) This is where the MilesBot responds about how "Stand" is the "What if we had *really* sold out like the hipster doofi are saying?" song - really, how can you hear that guitar solo and/or see the video and *not* think that it's a joke? - and "Get Up" is in a similar vein. Thinking of other Green rawkers, "Orange Crush" (which dates from Document) is meant to be taken seriously, sure, but definitely not those other two. "Pop Song 89" is meta and angrier about their situation, and thus somewhere in between. Anyway, thanks to the YouTubabe, I can now link to a vital piece of evidence for the skeptics: R.E.M.'s appearance on the Arsenio Hall Show in '89. Arsenio was not a good talk show host, but I do give him credit for (1) allowing a lot of musical guests to do two songs, and (2) usually interviewing the musical guests. So R.E.M. played Big Hit Single "Stand" as their first song. I'm going to link to the clip that has the interview segment and "Get Up." I will also transcribe the relevant portion thusly (it's at 1:50 in the clip): Arsenio: I've heard different people say different things about your lyrics. Somebody said you do real heavy stuff, and, uh, one of you, I'm not sure wh... Stipe, visibly laughing: Did you hear that song? That was dumb! Arsenio: Well, that's what surprised me, because one of you, and it was probably you [pointing at Stipe], 'cos I'm learnin' the personalities here already, and one of you called it a "dumb pop song," and said a lot of the stuff is dumb pop. Stipe: That is one big dumb pop song. And so is the next one. But the next one is better, and it's our new single. End of transcription. Decide for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_KWB4zjSzU later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:40:04 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: > > This is where the MilesBot responds about how "Stand" is the "What if > we had *really* sold out like the hipster doofi are saying?" song - > really, how can you hear that guitar solo and/or see the video and > *not* think that it's a joke? - and "Get Up" is in a similar vein. > Thinking of other Green rawkers, "Orange Crush" (which dates from > Document) is meant to be taken seriously, sure, but definitely not > those other two. "Pop Song 89" is meta and angrier about their > situation, and thus somewhere in between. > For me it's the "meta" that condemns those songs, rather than any belief that they were genuine "sellouts". Yes, playing around with the idea of fame and selling out are a smidge better than actually selling out, but the topic itself isn't really interesting to me (at least not compared to hazy weird Southern pseudo-mythology, I guess) and again, I just don't think the band was suited to it. It was fine for U2, but I can't see it as having any value for R.E.M. in the long run. In other words, it's true that it's silly to sit around hating "Stand" and those others for being sellout songs, which they aren't, but beyond its jokey and meta qualities they don't truly have much to recommend them, and I don't think that can easily be said about any prior R.E.M. songs. Oddly, I've never much thought about what would have happened if they'd continued to go the way of Document. They were on the verge of being a sort of halfway house between the Byrds and Gang of Four there for a minute. Might have been interesting. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:04:34 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: rem > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On > Behalf Of Miles Goosens > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:07 PM ... > This is where the MilesBot responds about how "Stand" is the "What if we had > *really* sold out like the hipster doofi are saying?" song - really, how can you > hear that guitar solo and/or see the video and > *not* think that it's a joke? - and "Get Up" is in a similar vein. I can't prove it but I think they loved those songs when they made them, as much as I do, and dismissing them as big dumb pop is just Stipe having it both ways. I mean, they are big dumb pop, but they're also smart big dumb pop. I also think writing a song like "Stand" and making it work is a lot harder to pull off than something like "Driver 8", which is sort of safe and unassailable. It's difficult to believe that they would put so much on the line for songs they considered jokes. This is why I never get to have lunch with the cool kids. +brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:32:33 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: rem On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > > I can't prove it but I think they loved those songs when they made them, as > much as I do, and dismissing them as big dumb pop is just Stipe having it > both ways. I mean, they are big dumb pop, but they're also smart big dumb > pop. I also think writing a song like "Stand" and making it work is a lot > harder to pull off than something like "Driver 8", which is sort of safe > and > unassailable. It's difficult to believe that they would put so much on the > line for songs they considered jokes. > Well, like you say, part of the labor they put into those tunes was to insure that they got to pass them off as "jokes". The reason they don't do much for me-- I think-- is that they're really only there, they were really only worked on that hard to begin with, as a response to the whole "fame and voice of a generation" thing, about which I didn't/don't care. That is, they're not a natural outgrowth of "Driver 8" and if the records were had been still selling the same amounts as Reckoning, I really doubt the band would have arrived at the point of writing that kind of material to begin with. Also unprovable, of course. I also seem to keep forgetting that "Turn You Inside Out" is on Green. That song actually kicks ass. But I'm also forgetting "I Remember California", which sucks pretty bad (personal bias against CA-bashing songs in full effect here). > > This is why I never get to have lunch with the cool kids. > > +brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:35:01 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem One note: See? We're talking about R.E.M., and suddenly the list is back from the dead...must be a different decade alla sudden... On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: > > Anyway, thanks to the YouTubabe, I can now link to a vital piece of > evidence for the skeptics: R.E.M.'s appearance on the Arsenio Hall > Show in '89. Arsenio was not a good talk show host, but I do give him > credit for (1) allowing a lot of musical guests to do two songs, and > (2) usually interviewing the musical guests. So R.E.M. played Big Hit > Single "Stand" as their first song. I'm going to link to the clip that > has the interview segment and "Get Up." Also - that version was a hell of a lot of fun. So there. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:17:44 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Rex Broome wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > > > I can't prove it but I think they loved those songs when they made them, > as > > much as I do, and dismissing them as big dumb pop is just Stipe having it > > both ways. I mean, they are big dumb pop, but they're also smart big dumb > > pop. I also think writing a song like "Stand" and making it work is a lot > > harder to pull off than something like "Driver 8", which is sort of safe > > and > > unassailable. It's difficult to believe that they would put so much on > the > > line for songs they considered jokes. > > > I don't see where there's a lot of labor in "Stand." I mean, it's pretty much the most obvious chords and melody you can have, with a key change or two. I mean, you could argue, But what about that countermelody bit, and... I still think they could have written that one in little longer than it takes to play it. My take is similar to Rex's but probably not so harsh: R.E.M. have always had a handful of tossed-off, unserious songs...but usually, they were either relegated to b-sides (the classic home of such items) or they were very short. To give a song like "Stand" not only a full-dress workthrough but also put it right smack on the album, and make a single of it...well, remember what I wrote above about refusing to repeat themselves even though at times repeating themselves would have been, musically, the right thing to do? It's that sort of anxious perversity that weakened their Warners output, if you ask me. They weren't sure what to do with their fame: embrace it? deny it? play games with it? And I guess I shouldn't judge them too harshly - - I have never been The Biggest or Second-Biggest Rock Band in the World, and haven't had to try to write, record, and perform under such expectations. (Pretty sure no one else here has, either - unless, wait, that IrishDaveUU on the list is really The Edge?) But I think it's interesting that the best record they did after the height of their fame was pretty much after that fame and popularity had completely gone, and they could just kinda be a band again, with almost no expectations. Sure, once word got out what Accelerate was supposed to sound like, there was lots of anticipation...but they'd already recorded it. Oh - and Brian's point re "loving those songs" ... yes, probably, but in much the way they loved "Windout" or "White Tornado" or "Burning Hell" or "Underneath the Bunker" etc., or goofs like their cover of "King of the Road" or "Toys in the Attic"... Notice that most of that stuff *wasn't* on their albums...and for me, the proportion of fillericious songs increases on later records... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:49:36 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: rem Me: > I also think writing a song like "Stand" and making it work is a lot harder > to pull off than something like "Driver 8", which is sort of safe and unassailable. Jeff: > I don't see where there's a lot of labor in "Stand." I mean, it's pretty much the > most obvious chords and melody you can have, with a key change or two. I > mean, you could argue, But what about that countermelody bit, and... > I still think they could have written that one in little longer than it takes to play it. I wasn't talking about difficult chord progressions or time signatures, but "making it work". I assume most of you would argue that it doesn't, which is sort of my point. "Driver 8" is risk-free, too pure to fail. As long as they didn't accidentally add a horn section and backup singers there was no way they could fuck it up. "Stand" isn't just pop, it's bubblegum, with an extremely deliberate arrangement (no strummed chords or arpeggio wash), upfront doubled vocals singing simple silly lines, and yes, two modulations. You think that wasn't hard for them? Whether it's any good is a matter of taste. I know I'm in the minority, but Green bought them a few more years of my attention because of "Stand" and, especially, "Get Up". That said, I don't know nearly as much about the band as the rest of you do, and it's been fun reading everyone's opinions. +brian ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V19 #71 *******************************