From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #306 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, October 20 2003 Volume 03 : Number 306 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town [] Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town ["Tim Walters" ] Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town [wsilvers@earthlink] Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town [Stewart Mason Subject: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town >>In retrospect, the band's host of promisesbroken, one by oneto their fan >>base appear designed specifically to ward off the dilemma they now find >>themselves in. I was gonna go down this list of broken promises one by one and note how they were all either jokes or off-the-cuff comments or whatever, but Jeff did it already. The main thing is that all those jokes were taken too seriously and are repeated ad nauseum to this day by fans who *want(ed)* them to be solemn oaths for their own bizarre fannish reasons... something this journalist should recognize because, umm, he's doing it, too. And it's true, nobody risks experimental records a decade into their career, and if they do it's never good, and if they were going to they certainly wouldn't go to Berlin to record them. (Okay, admittedly this is easier for solo artists than bands.) Related: - -I knew at least two old-school REM fans who gave up on them *because* of Automatic. Odd, but true. - -Agreeing with JeFFrey again... there's not a singles song on All That Can't Leave Your Behind that sounds as much like early U2 as either "Imitation of Life" or "The Great Beyond" sound like early REM. - -Is Steel Wheels even in print? I remember Rolling Stone listing it as one of the top 100 albums of the '80's... ha! And ha ha some more! I think it might've even been in the top fifty. And Scott's highest ranking was... hold on, let me see here... gotta be one on there somewhere... - -People are just really into being mean to REM these days, and the tone of the band in interviews seems to be slipping from defensive to defeatist-- possibly because Pete Buck takes rock writing too seriously, I dunno-- so maybe they will just call it quits and make "everyone" happy. Thank you, Rock Journalism. Speaking of irritating reviews, was it someone here who was sticking up for Ken Tucker? Because I dare you to read his review of the new fall TV show "Hope and Faith", then actually watch an episode of it, and tell me his review was anything other than a cruel, cruel fucking joke. 'Cuz either that, or too many years of reflexively crying "shitty is the new good" under occasionally legitimate circumstances have fried his motherboard at last. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:56:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Rex.Broome wrote: > -I knew at least two old-school REM fans who gave up on them *because* of > Automatic. Odd, but true. Three, unless I'm one of your two. I find AUTOMATIC grotesquely mawkish, like an album-length version of "The Flowers of Guatemala." I can't listen to it at all. - -- SHALMANESER Artifically unintelligent twitching disco brain http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Shalmaneser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:12:02 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Delgados At 11:34 AM 10/16/2003 -0700, Michael Mitton wrote: >While I'm writing, I'll mention that eMusic has all four Delgados >albums. I'd start with "Great Eastern" if you're inclined to >orchestral pop, "Domestiques" if you want something more frenetic, >"Peloton" if you want to split the difference. Chemikal Underground is just about to issue a belated US version of DOMESTIQUES, which is like six years old at this point, with a half-dozen or so bonus tracks that sound basically like the songs on the album proper. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:22:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: wsilvers@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Rex.Broome asked: Speaking of irritating reviews, was it someone here who was sticking up for Ken Tucker? Because I dare you to read his review of the new fall TV show "Hope and Faith", then actually watch an episode of it, and tell me his review was anything other than a cruel, cruel fucking joke. 'Cuz either that, or too many years of reflexively crying "shitty is the new good" under occasionally legitimate circumstances have fried his motherboard at last. - --- It was me, unless it was somebody else. I don't think I can talk myself into spending a half-hour actually testing your assertion, and any small affection I held for Kelly Ripa from being a ten-year AMC viewer who knew her when evaporated long ago. Faith Ford I didn't care about from Murphy Brown, for that matter. Heck, I was a little surprised that nobody mentioned how "crappier than you'd have imagined" the US "Coupling" was, despite our excitement over new opportunities to ogle Rena Sofer. I guess some things just go without saying. I did only see the premiere, though, so if somebody wants to change my mind, please do so. b.s. who should have known that NBC would move "Boomtown" to the "Homicide" slot in order to underappreciate it, too. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:45:50 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town At 01:22 PM 10/20/2003 -0500, wsilvers@earthlink.net wrote: >Heck, I was a little surprised that nobody mentioned how "crappier >than you'd have imagined" the US "Coupling" was, despite our excitement >over new opportunities to ogle Rena Sofer. I guess some things just go >without saying. I did only see the premiere, though, so if somebody wants >to change my mind, please do so. "It goes without saying" pretty much sums it up. Back last year before the show was even on the air, there were stories about how awful it was -- apparently, the original writer/producers, the team behind CAN'T HARDLY WAIT and JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS, either quit or were fired, and the pilot was recast and reshot several times -- and when you hear stories like that, it's a given that the show is doomed. What's remarkable, though, is how genuinely awful this show is. At least based on the episode and a half I saw, it's stunning how poorly cast the show is -- not one actor is right for his or her role -- and whoever that is who's playing Sally must be the least competent actress I've ever seen in a major role on a network TV series. I admit I was kind of looking forward to seeing at least one episode that wasn't a word-for-word steal of one of the UK show's original scripts, just to see how it differed...although the word "fanfic" comes to mind based on the level of competence shown in every other aspect of the series...but given that the show was yanked even before sweeps started, I don't think that's going to happen. The more disturbing news is that while apparently there IS going to be a series 4 of the UK show, it apparently won't have Richard Coyle, who's busy with other projects. I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. Which IS side B of CHRONIC TOWN? I thought it was "1,000,000" and "Stumble," but isn't it on the CD with "Wolves Lower," "Gardening At Night" and "Carnival of Sorts" coming after? S NP: TIL THE BAND COMES IN -- Scott Walker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Stewart Mason wrote: > "It goes without saying" pretty much sums it up. Back last year before the > show was even on the air, there were stories about how awful it was -- > apparently, the original writer/producers, the team behind CAN'T HARDLY > WAIT and JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS, either quit or were fired, and the pilot > was recast and reshot several times -- and when you hear stories like that, > it's a given that the show is doomed. What's remarkable, though, is how > genuinely awful this show is. Having seen only the first season on DVD, it doesn't suprprise me that the NBC version would be bad. COUPLING's salient feature to me was its juxtaposition of intense horniess with English reserve & easy embarrassment. Since American sitcoms predicate themselves on crass behavior w/o consequences, where's the tension? Awaiting Season 2 eagerly, Joe P.S. Has anyone who's seen the "Inferno" episode started noticing the Hardman cut a lot these days? One of the memebers of AMAZING RACE 4 team David & Jeff maintained a Hardman cut across several contintents! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:29:01 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Quoting Stewart Mason : > Which IS side B of CHRONIC TOWN? The side that sucks - duh. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. np: Robert Wyatt _Shleep_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:41:44 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town At 10:56 AM 10/20/2003 -0700, Tim Walters wrote: >Rex.Broome wrote: > >> -I knew at least two old-school REM fans who gave up on them *because* of >> Automatic. Odd, but true. > >Three, unless I'm one of your two. I find AUTOMATIC grotesquely mawkish, >like an album-length version of "The Flowers of Guatemala." I can't listen >to it at all. I didn't give up on them because of AFTP, and I've probably exaggerated my distaste for AFTP for rhetorical purposes -- I think there's some great moments on it. When the ominous "Drive" was released a few weeks before the album, it had me *very* excited about AFTP; "Nightswimming" and "Find the River" are both gorgeous, though since they're both natural "ending" songs, they suffer from their back-to-back placement; "The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight" adds some much-needed pop pep; "Monty Got a Raw Deal" adds a much-needed touch of venom. But, um, pretty much what Tim said. Plus AFTP tapped into some sort of weirdo Yuppie Death Angst vibe, which I don't think was the band's intent at all, but it sure helped sell the record. The only upside to it was getting to see these folks run screaming from the MONSTER tour shows, moving as fast as their little birkenstocks could carry them to their Jeep Grand Cherokee Special Editions parked in the VIP lot ("Chad, I can't *believe* they're a *noisy rock band!* I just thought it would be a quiet evening out where we could hold hands during 'Everybody Hurts'..."). However, I really didn't give up on them until UP and REVEAL. I'll omit any other R.E.M. likes/dislikes, since most Loud-Fans can probably recite from memory my stances on each album. Or Andy Hamlin can cut and paste them to the list. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:36:47 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town At 02:29 PM 10/20/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Quoting Stewart Mason : > >> Which IS side B of CHRONIC TOWN? > >The side that sucks - duh. "1,000,000" and "Stumble," then. Cool. S NP: PERMISSION TO BUILD -- Waltham ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:39:50 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Stewart Mason wrote: > Which IS side B of CHRONIC TOWN? I thought it was "1,000,000" and > "Stumble," but isn't it on the CD with "Wolves Lower," "Gardening At Night" > and "Carnival of Sorts" coming after? It is "1,000,000" and "Stumble", and I believe the DEAD LETTER OFFICE cd has it sequenced in order (at the end). I have the cassette version, which has the whole thing on each side (just like Let's Active's AFOOT). Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:17:24 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: [loud-fans] Coupling - very little R.E.M. Joseph M. Mallon on 10/20/2003 6:18:40 AM wrote: > Having seen only the first season on DVD, it doesn't suprprise me that the > NBC version would be bad. COUPLING's salient feature to me was its > juxtaposition of intense horniess with English reserve & easy > embarrassment. Since American sitcoms predicate themselves on crass > behavior w/o consequences, where's the tension? I would agree with this. The same dialogue that works wonderfully coming from the mouths of British actors just doesn't quite work right when coming from Americans (especially those Americans, most of whom look like deer caught in headlights). But... I would also add that part of the big appeal of the (BBC) Coupling was the way they skirted around conventional forms of sitcoms, and storytelling in general. But the show didn't start out that way - it played around a little bit with the conventions in the first season, and than really tore them apart in the second and third. It would've been interesting to see what the American version would've done when it got to that point, but I guess we'll probably never know. One of the things I'm trying to say here is that not even the British versions of the first few episodes were that fantastic, so I'm not surprised the American ones weren't either. It took awhile to hit its stride. And all these remarks about Coupling being the British version of Friends? Hogwash!! It's the British version of Seinfeld. Again, that's more evident in the later episodes. Looking forward to the fourth season, but I don't see how it can work without Richard Coyle/Jeff... BTW, ATFP was the first REM album that lost me. That's when they first started to slide for me. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:19:03 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Just to provide some perspective, a quick look through REM's publicity photos shows that the band has always been slaves to fashion. And "Monster" was recorded during a time when loud rock bands were in vogue, and REM was trying to survive a serious change in the marketplace. I don't give the band much thought, myself, but it's delusional to think of them as innovators. They just didn't milk the '90s quite like they planned. (But then, they were getting by without Jefferson Holt...and that's to their credit). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:36:20 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Actually, COUPLING has sucked since before its U.S. pilot At 02:45 PM 10/20/2003 -0400, Stewart Mason wrote: >it's a given that the show is doomed. What's remarkable, though, is how >genuinely awful this show is. At least based on the episode and a half I >saw, it's stunning how poorly cast the show is -- not one actor is right >for his or her role I was hoping that Rena Sofer would get Jane; that might have worked. But you're completely right about the sorry casting. It's like a fair-to-middlin' U.S. repertory company doing Stoppard or Pinter (not that COUPLING is on *that* level, though it's darn funny) -- they just can't make the material come to life, even though the few U.K.-isms in the dialogue have been excised. The men in particular seem like they're *reading* rather than acting, which seems to happen quite often when American actors do U.K. scripts. Heck, even someone as wildly competent as Jack Lemmon seemed like he was doing a recitation in his HAMLET cameo. >-- and whoever that is who's playing Sally must be the >least competent actress I've ever seen in a major role on a network TV series. I would agree with that too, except my friend Dawn just told me that she watched every episode of THE MIND OF THE MARRIED MAN, unwillingly I should note (her husband loved it; she wishes she had spent that time doing something more useful like watching paint dry), and that Sonya Walger almost singlehandedly salvaged the show for her. Since Dawn doesn't dispense praise lightly, I'm giving Ms. Walger a pass on this one. It also strikes me that the majority of the ten minutes they cut out of each U.K. episode have been Sally scenes, so if Sonya has the comedy goods, she's had less of an opportunity to strut it than her COUPLING co-stars. >The more disturbing news is that while apparently there IS going to be a >series 4 of the UK show, it apparently won't have Richard Coyle, who's busy >with other projects. I can't help but think that this is a bad idea. Eeep! I hadn't heard that Richard Coyle would be AWOL. I think the characters that are essential are Jeff and Jane, and I can't imagine the show without Jeff. Bad idea, indeedy. I hope Coyle's just angling for a pay raise. Can't agree with Stewart about which side of CHRONIC TOWN should come first nor about the suckiness of "1,000,000"/"Stumble" (the whole EP is great, IMO), but I think we still agree about which side of Joy Division's CLOSER comes first, CD order be damned. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:39:21 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Quoting Steve Holtebeck : > It is "1,000,000" and "Stumble" Which indeed are lesser tracks than the other three, although I wouldn't agree with Stewart that they actually sucked. Then again, smoe.org stripped off an attachment from Stewart's post that was named "saltgrain.exe" - so maybe I'm okay. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:47:24 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, COUPLING has sucked since before its U.S. pilot At 03:36 PM 10/20/2003 -0500, Miles Goosens wrote: >>-- and whoever that is who's playing Sally must be the >>least competent actress I've ever seen in a major role on a network TV series. > >I would agree with that too, except my friend Dawn just told me that >she watched every episode of THE MIND OF THE MARRIED MAN, unwillingly I >should note (her husband loved it; she wishes she had spent that time >doing something more useful like watching paint dry), and that Sonya >Walger almost singlehandedly salvaged the show for her. Since Dawn >doesn't dispense praise lightly, I'm giving Ms. Walger a pass on this >one. It also strikes me that the majority of the ten minutes they cut >out of each U.K. episode have been Sally scenes, so if Sonya has the >comedy goods, she's had less of an opportunity to strut it than her >COUPLING co-stars. It's also true that Sally doesn't really get defined until the later series - -- she was underwritten in the first series, as Rog points out in a more general way. I read somewhere that Sonya Walger is actually British -- maybe she's so busy trying to hold a Midwestern accent that she can't think about line readings. >Can't agree with Stewart about which side of CHRONIC TOWN should come >first nor about the suckiness of "1,000,000"/"Stumble" (the whole EP is >great, IMO), but I think we still agree about which side of Joy Division's >CLOSER comes first, CD order be damned. Finishing that album with any song other than "A Means To An End" is just retarded. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:52:56 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > Just to provide some perspective, a quick look through REM's > publicity photos > shows that the band has always been slaves to fashion. Someone must have forgotten to tell Peter Buck's hairstylist then... And hasn't he worn the same big white shirt since...forever? And > "Monster" was > recorded during a time when loud rock bands were in vogue, and > REM was trying to > survive a serious change in the marketplace. I don't give the > band much > thought, myself, but it's delusional to think of them as > innovators. Oh, I wouldn't call them "innovators," no - but then, innovation in rock has always been overrated. At the same time, I think it's a mistake to just call them followers: true, Monster came out at the height of grunge...but the loud guitar rock R.E.M. did was quite different from that of any grunge act (w/the possible exception of a noise or two possibly borrowed from Mudhoney: paging Jenny Grover). I mean, if they really wanted to be a grunge act, I'm sure someone could have downtuned their guitars for them - and Stipe actually could do a pretty fair Vedderesque yarl if he needed to. I think they've followed their own course, pretty much: not innovators as such, but not followers either. Actually, 'round about Dead Letter Office, I noticed that a lot of their b-sides were genre exercises ("Burning Hell" is the best example, that surfy instrumental whose title I forget, and I suppose we should include "Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at best...) but they always sounded like no one but R.E.M. That might be a problem - I mean, if you're a hard rock fan, "Burning Hell" is pretty laughable as such - but then, duh, it is a joke, isn't it. Okay, can someone please remove "Radio Song" from their catalog completely, though? ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot np: Heavenly vs. Satan - thanks dmw! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:15:47 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since the original Hibtone single Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > true, Monster came out at the > >height of grunge...but the loud guitar rock R.E.M. did was quite >different from that of any grunge act (w/the possible exception of >a >noise or two possibly borrowed from Mudhoney: paging Jenny Grover). > ..huh? Oh, hi!... Mudhoney... hadn't thought of that connection (although, we can play 1 degree of separation in the person of Scott McCaughy, since he plays in the New Original Sonic Sound). In fact, I hadn't thought of Monster as having any particular relation to grunge, if that's what we must call it, one way or the other, other than that they coexisted in time (or Out of Time, or something like that). Then again, who am I? I actually like Reveal. >I think they've followed their own course, pretty much: not >innovators as such, but not followers either. > I agree, except that I think, at times, they have been innovative. >and I suppose we should include >"Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at best...) > Hey! I like that song a lot. >Okay, can someone please remove "Radio Song" from their catalog >completely, though? > > Um... I like this song, too, though it's not near the top of my list, by any means. I like the video a lot. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:34:15 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town At 03:52 PM 10/20/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > And >> "Monster" was >> recorded during a time when loud rock bands were in vogue, and >> REM was trying to >> survive a serious change in the marketplace. I don't give the >> band much >> thought, myself, but it's delusional to think of them as >> innovators. > >Oh, I wouldn't call them "innovators," no - but then, innovation in >rock has always been overrated. At the same time, I think it's a >mistake to just call them followers: true, Monster came out at the >height of grunge...but the loud guitar rock R.E.M. did was quite >different from that of any grunge act (w/the possible exception of >a >noise or two possibly borrowed from Mudhoney: paging Jenny Grover). It was much, much more like their take on glam ("Crush With Eyeliner" is especially illustrative of this point). As for the timing of MONSTER, the album's sound was much more the result of internal factors. They'd made two albums in a row of generally less-rocking material, and they were ready to rock out, period. I don't think the band or Warner Brothers would have been too disappointed to see it catch on with the grunge kiddies, but I think MONSTER was made for the reasons R.E.M.'s made all of their albums -- because it was what they wanted to do at the time. Mind you, I don't always agree with what they choose to do, but I've never thought it was to catch the main chance. >and I suppose we should include >"Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at best... > >Okay, can someone please remove "Radio Song" from their catalog >completely, though? Huh. Well, two more things to put on my list of "things I would have never known people thought about music if I wasn't on the Internet" (entry #1 is "'Mammoth Gardens' sucks"). Not to change the subject, but I love Jeffrey's comments about U2's post-JOSHUA TREE catalog -- because, of course, they're the same as my opinions about those albums. :-) Did I say how disappointed I was not only by ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND (beginning with that awful, Sting-like title), but by the "pick all the most-conventional-sounding songs!" choices that the band made on their 1990-2000 "Best of" compilation? While I'm hardly implying that the Beatles and U2 are playing in the same league, if the only Beatles albums you had ever heard were the Red and Blue compilations, you'd know for sure that these were two very different phases of the band's career. If the only U2 albums you had ever heard were the single-disc versions of the 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 "Best of"s, you'd have a hard time figuring out why anyone got in a tizzy over the later material, since all but a couple of them ("Numb" and "Discotheque") sound just like the earlier stuff. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:32:18 -0700 (PDT) From: wsilvers@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >I suppose we should include "Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at best Uh, "who's 'we,' Kimosabe?" b.s. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:43:26 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town wsilvers wrote: >Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >>I suppose we should include "Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality >>at best >Uh, "who's 'we,' Kimosabe?" I have to second that. I *love* 'Can't Get There From Here.' If I had to axe one song from the REM catalog, it would be "Shiney Happy People." Of course, I'm a die-hard REM fan who even liked "Up," so what do I know? R. Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:35:51 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: [loud-fans] when the world is a midlife crisis attempt to reclaim rock band status "R. Kevin Doyle" wrote: > I have to second that. I *love* 'Can't Get There From Here.' Me three. I can't believe anyone would pull that song from the catalog! > If I had to axe one song from the REM catalog, it would be "Shiney Happy > People." You haven't heard the "Sesame Street" version! I think that's a song that R.E.M. intended to be a jokey B-side, which unfortunately ended up on the album, was released as a single, and became a huge hit, and they've been trying to disown it ever since. I like it (better than "Radio Song" and a few other OUT OF TIME songs, like that Moody Bluesish one Mike Mills sings), but understand why no one else does! > Of course, I'm a die-hard REM fan who even liked "Up," so what do I > know? I even like REVEAL, even in the present tense, so my R.E.M. opinion is more suspect than anyone's. I haven't noticed people into being mean to R.E.M. so much these days as just ignoring them. Most of the press on the tour and greatest hits album has been positive -- even that slate guy said something about "best rock band of the last two decades of the 20th century" in between his incoherent rambling. Steve Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:39:15 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since the second song of that gig at the converted church Quoting Jenny Grover : > Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > > true, Monster came out at the > > > >height of grunge...but the loud guitar rock R.E.M. did was > quite > >different from that of any grunge act (w/the possible exception > of > >a > >noise or two possibly borrowed from Mudhoney: paging Jenny > Grover). > > > > ..huh? Oh, hi!... Mudhoney... hadn't thought of that connection Well, thanks to Miles' dead-on mention of glam, we can do it mathematically (but won't): Of all the so-called grunge act, Mudhoney was the most garage-influence and most psych-influenced; glam is influenced (in different proportions, to be sure) by garage and psych (psych and glam are cousins); ipso fucto, Monster bears *some* relation to Mudhoney. It's the tremolo and garagey-ness that I hear as being vaguely (if it's close to *any* g-act) Mudhoney-esque. > hadn't thought of Monster as having any particular relation to > grunge, > if that's what we must call it, one way or the other, other than > that > they coexisted in time Well, right - but I thought JRT was implying that as "slaves to fashion," Monster was their bid to hop on the then-steamin' grunge train. (Just as folks who don't like Frosting on the Beater claim that the Posies' guitars were turned up to grungify their sound: those people clearly had never been to one of their shows!) >and I suppose we should include > >"Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at > best...) > > > Hey! I like that song a lot. And the CGTFH crowd arrives in force. I dunno, I always thought it was, as a goof, a bit forced to really work, even though I like parts of it. It doesn't (to coin a phrase) suck - but I think it doesn't work that well on the album: thus, "b-side." > >Okay, can someone please remove "Radio Song" from their catalog > >completely, though? > > Um... I like this song, too, though it's not near the top of my > list, by > any means. This one I'm more comfortable dissing. First, putting a rapper on an R.E.M. record is like filling a Springsteen album with cheesy synths and Big Studio Drums (oh...): it's just stylistically absurd, and really *did* reek of Hey! You guys! Listen to us cuz we got a real rapper on our record! Then the song itself: boring topic, and two musical halves that go together like peanut butter and shock absorber fluid. That minor-key, string-accompanied part doesn't just *contrast* with the agitated verse sections, it sounds like another song entirely. Re "Shiny Happy People": yeah, I know - but it's so easy to put down cheery, happy, inane songs, that I feel compelled to defend it on some sort of principle. And besides: how many more really stupidly, carbon-copy "dark" tracks got praised skywards in the nineties particularly? Oh I'm so angst-ridden and minor-key addicted, and here's a sample from a horror movie or porn film, and now I'm gonna scream "fuck" for no good reason, because I'm ragin' against the machine (except those parts of it promoting my record) and I'm really dangerous... - --Jeff, tearily nostalgic for the nineties, I guess J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Terrorism is the war of the poor. :: War is the terrorism of the rich. :: --Peter Ustinov np: Broadcast - Haha Sound ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:35:05 EDT From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since the second song of that gig at... In a message dated 10/20/03 6:39:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jenor@uwm.edu writes: > Re "Shiny Happy People": yeah, I know - but it's so easy to put > down > cheery, happy, inane songs, that I feel compelled to defend it on > some sort of principle. And besides: how many more really stupidly, > carbon-copy "dark" tracks got praised skywards in the nineties > particularly? Oh I'm so angst-ridden and minor-key addicted, and > here's a sample from a horror movie or porn film, and now I'm gonna > scream "fuck" for no good reason, because I'm ragin' against the > machine (except those parts of it promoting my record) and I'm > really dangerous... > > Right on target. That's why I love SHP. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:53:19 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] when the world is a midlife crisis attempt to reclaim rock band status > > If I had to axe one song from the REM catalog, it would be "Shiney Happy > > People." > >You haven't heard the "Sesame Street" version Geez, I don't know about you, but I think if the Sesame Street characters cover your song that's an eternal badge of honor!! I love "Shiny Happy People." There was (and is) so much depressing, self-indulgent dirge-like crap no the radio that this song was a very welcome relief. I'd much rather hear it than the monotonous, overlong "The One I Love." _________________________________________________________________ Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:04:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] when the world is a midlife crisis attempt to reclaim rock band status On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Aaron Milenski wrote: > I love "Shiny Happy People." There was (and is) so much depressing, > self-indulgent dirge-like crap no the radio that this song was a very > welcome relief. Well, now, I like happy songs too, but I don't like *that* one, and just as with uncomplicatedly miserable lyrics, I think it's fair to say that a song which is simply cheery lives or dies by someone's gut reaction to it... there's no depth in it for a fan who doesn't like it at first but tries to give it a second chance... a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:06:12 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since the second song of that gig at... In a message dated 10/20/03 6:39:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jenor@uwm.edu writes: > Re "Shiny Happy People": yeah, I know - but it's so easy to put > down > cheery, happy, inane songs, that I feel compelled to defend it on > some sort of principle. And besides: how many more really stupidly, > carbon-copy "dark" tracks got praised skywards in the nineties > particularly? Oh I'm so angst-ridden and minor-key addicted, and > here's a sample from a horror movie or porn film, and now I'm gonna > scream "fuck" for no good reason, because I'm ragin' against the > machine (except those parts of it promoting my record) and I'm > really dangerous... > It isn't the positive stuff that gets me down on "SHP" - it is the guitar hook. That hook absolutely drives me berserk. Personally, I dig happy music. Hey ya! R. Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:41:36 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] [Fwd: Calvin Johnson in car accident] http://www.krecs.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:13:49 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since the second song of that gig at the converted church In a message dated 10/20/03 2:39:49 PM, jenor@uwm.edu writes: << Well, right - but I thought JRT was implying that as "slaves to fashion," Monster was their bid to hop on the then-steamin' grunge train. >> Actually, I've always thought of "Monster" as the only way Pete Buck could stay interested in the band, much to the label's delight. I don't know how common the story is about Buck not knowing (or caring about) any of REM's lyrics, but it's certainly true. That's another reason I find it hard to get excited about REM as an innovative '90s act. They're about as close as The Cars were toward the end of that band's career. A lot of their work in the '90s was about financial commitments. And, of course, it's hard to take Michael Stipe seriously. At the end of the '80s, the guy thought Operation Rescue was an animal shelter group. He's certainly done nice work as a film producer, though. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:16:05 -0700 From: Tim Walters Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since since Side B of Chronic Town On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 11:45 AM, Stewart Mason wrote: > Which IS side B of CHRONIC TOWN? I thought it was "1,000,000" and > "Stumble," but isn't it on the CD with "Wolves Lower," "Gardening At > Night" > and "Carnival of Sorts" coming after? Just checked my vinyl copy. The back lists the five songs starting with "1,000,000" and "Stumble", but without directly indicating the sides. Checking the label, there's no actual "Side A" or "Side 1" text, but the catalog number ends in "-A" on the "Gardening" side and "-B" on the "1,000,000" side. So there's a contradiction. I went with the much more obvious back listing and always played the "1,000,000" side first. I don't think I ever noticed the label's discrepancy. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:35:15 -0500 From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Actually, REM has sucked since the second song of that gig at the converted church Jeffrey wrote: > >and I suppose we should include > > >"Can't Get There from Here" as being of b-side quality at > > best...) > > > > > > Hey! I like that song a lot. > >And the CGTFH crowd arrives in force. I dunno, I always thought it >was, as a goof, a bit forced to really work, even though I like >parts of it. It doesn't (to coin a phrase) suck - but I think it >doesn't work that well on the album: thus, "b-side." Uh, I guess this makes sense, but how, exactly? Sure, "Can't Get There From Here" is a bit of an anomaly on FABLES, but that doesn't in itself make it a b-side. To the contrary, it's a strong enough single (and clearly, well-regarded by many) to merit inclusion on EPONYMOUS, the sort-of greatest hits compilation. I mean, what other song from FABLES would constitute an "a-side" by its congruence with the rest of the record (to use your apparent definition) and its suitability to be a in-rotation tune for radio (the standard by which a single is typically judged)? b.s. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #306 *******************************