Well, I don't think that rock music ever needed "saving". It's just a loose category that has many variations, and within that, REM certainly made their unique contribution. They were exciting, different and passionate, and not afraid to throw in an unusual instrument here and there. My apologies for underating Mike Mills. I saw them three times live, and I will agree that he is very talented. I don't know if you will agree with this, but I am someone who always pays attention to drummers, and I don't think that Bill Berry was much of a drummer at all. It's fortunate that the rest of the band was so interesting that it didn't matter much. He never had any interesting fills. He just sort of "kept time".
Is R.E.M. underrated by new music nerds?
I've been in a R.E.M. phase in late 2018, they kept me going through the toughest period of my life. A lot of their stuff especially in their incredible 1987-1996 run means a lot to me and have been pivotal in growing my music taste but emotion aside I think quality-wise they were one of the greatest rock band of all time, if not one the best band. I actually think this is not a hot take.
What I think is an interesting thing to discuss is how R.E.M. are relevant to new audiences of my age (I'm 20 btw) like all the music nerds that grew on the Internet (RYM or /mucore) or the music channels or profiles on YouTube and Instagram that review or examine music.
I think that in this demographic area R.E.M. are underrated or more specifically they are put inside the categories of "Gen X bands" like U2 or similar. And i think it's a shame because they have one the best musical palettes of all time provided by really skilled musicians and an incredible and eclectic vocalist and songwriter like Michael Stipe. A band that even when they became globally famous they managed to stay coherent to their sound (until at least the early 90s) and political ethic. Their material should get more recognition among younger audiences like mine considering the huge influence they had on a lot of artist.
What do you think?
- ...
- 95 posts total
I’m a-bit above 50 and REM music was never "tasty" on my listening plate, because they’re extremely boring on each and every track they’ve created. Their marketing was fantastic though, because they were able to sell feces for diamonds. Therefore overrated is a lot more precise word, then uderrated. |
Count on you for an ignorant comment like that. Since you're such an expert on the band, give specific critiques of which discs you are even familiar with. Let me guess, you know one song like "Losing My Religion", and you didn't like it. Well neither did I, but they had 4 earlier discs which were very good. |
Idk; Out of Time was a benchmark album of the early 90's. It set up Automatic before the pivoted to Monster. I just found an original pressing of Out of Time and was transported not just back three decades but to a solid album. Still, think of the successful, sound-defining 90's bands that have not stuck around over the last 30 years: 10,000 Maniacs; Pearl Jam; Jane's; Live. I think REM was a much appreciated, zeitgeist capturing act of the time. |
@roxy54 Totally agree on Bill Berry. Hard to give REM superstar status with one weak link in the band but somehow, for me, they are up there given the vibrant energy they brought to rock n' roll at a time when the great bands of the 60s were lost in a fog of drugs and mid life crises. |
- 95 posts total