From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V19 #72 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, September 27 2011 Volume 19 : Number 072 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: rem [Rex Broome ] Re: rem ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: rem [2fs ] RE: rem ["Brian Huddell" ] Re: rem [Rex Broome ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:51:40 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:17 PM, 2fs wrote: > > 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. > You have a point. I guess the labor of it goes into what you go on to detail: the act of not laughing it off as a b-side and then subsequently taking it at least seriously enough to shoot the video for it, do the artwork for the single, etc... > > > - 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?) > Thinking my way through those times, it's worth mentioning that while hindsight, and even maybe the Rolling Stone year-end critics polls of the era, might have U2 and R.E.M. as the Twin Towers of Rock in the late '80s, I'm pretty sure that sales and airplay figures would tell a different story. U2 might still be on top, but if so they were in a near-dead-heat with Bon Jovi; and while R.E.M. might've made the Top 10, it would've been in some really sketchy company: Motley Crue, Poison, probably commercially resurgent but artistically spent bands like Aerosmith and even the Grateful Dead... shit, it's hard to even think of the bands, really; mostly it was a bunch of lightweight solo artists who'd just quit their bands. It would be a few years before the disparate likes of Metallica or The Cure would make the RNR Big Time even slightly interesting again. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:18:17 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: rem On 11-09-26 16:35 , 2fs wrote: > 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... Well, at least it's not full of complaints about how the UX has changed. And anyway, FB doesn't really work for those long-form comments. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:33:18 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rem On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > 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, > > 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. ... "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? Yes - I don't think that was hard for them. > "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. It's interesting...on the level of "arrangement" as an abstract (in both cases), I sorta see your point, but...you can't record an arrangement until you write the music. And musically, "Driver 8" just has way more going on that's interesting and effective (in a non-ironic way): the way that opening guitar riff interweaves with the bassline, the composition and playing of the riff itself (which uses all but one of the six strings and includes several different articulations); the way the emphasis of the beat shifts from the downbeat-emphasizing riff into the offbeat-emphasizing strummed rhythm part of the verses; the agitated rhythm of the pre-chorus, freed into and contrasting with the steady 8th-notes of the chorus proper; etc. etc. It might be "risk-free" in the sense that it "sounds like R.E.M." but, hey, you try writing that song. (Okay, wrong audience: you actually *have* written some pretty awesome songs...) > > +brian > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:45:10 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: rem Thanks for the last bit! I'd do anything, even look at those nude Stipe pics, to write a song as good as "Driver 8". My thesis eludes even me, now, so I'm dropping it. I really like the R.E.M. songs that smart people hate, including "Shiny Happy People", but I'm not able to make any sort of coherent case to justify it. N.P. - Banana Splits record from a cereal box +brian > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On > Behalf Of 2fs > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:33 PM > To: Coughing Vikings > Subject: Re: rem > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > 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, > > > > 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. ... "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? > > > Yes - I don't think that was hard for them. > > > > "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. > > > It's interesting...on the level of "arrangement" as an abstract (in both cases), I > sorta see your point, but...you can't record an arrangement until you write the > music. And musically, "Driver 8" just has way more going on that's interesting > and effective (in a non-ironic way): the way that opening guitar riff interweaves > with the bassline, the composition and playing of the riff itself (which uses all but > one of the six strings and includes several different articulations); the way the > emphasis of the beat shifts from the downbeat-emphasizing riff into the > offbeat-emphasizing strummed rhythm part of the verses; the agitated rhythm > of the pre-chorus, freed into and contrasting with the steady 8th-notes of the > chorus proper; etc. etc. > > It might be "risk-free" in the sense that it "sounds like R.E.M." but, hey, you try > writing that song. (Okay, wrong audience: you actually *have* written some > pretty awesome songs...) > > > > > > +brian > > > > > > -- > ...Jeff Norman > > The Architectural Dance Society > http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:59:55 -0700 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: rem On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Brian Huddell wrote: > Thanks for the last bit! I'd do anything, even look at those nude Stipe > pics, to write a song as good as "Driver 8". > > My thesis eludes even me, now, so I'm dropping it. I really like the R.E.M. > songs that smart people hate, including "Shiny Happy People", but I'm not > able to make any sort of coherent case to justify it. I actually like "Shiny Happy People" a lot and don't really feel much need to defend it... its virtues really should be self-evident. Great inventive arrangement, classic guitar riff, terrific vocal melody, classy vocal interplay... what's not to love? It's also really neither a blatant pop move (were songs with string quartets and shifting time signature and tempos really big in 1991?) nor one of the Green-style meta comments on pop fame things... it can pretty much only exist because the band wanted it to. So yeah, I did just defend it, I guess. And it probably was silly-- I bet nobody here is going to express any dislike for it. Just a hunch. I really like all of The Cure's dorky pop singles, too. - -Rex ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V19 #72 *******************************