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?
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. |
For the period, REM was THE defining alternative music band. Not just alternative but constantly reinventing and exploring new musical forms. There were a lot of grunge and indy bands around that time but none had the breadth of musical innovation and experimentation that REM had. Pearl Jam? Nirvana? Tori Amos? Self homogenizing emo. |
@seola30 First off, wecome to Audiogon. It looks like you just joined today and this is your first post. Just my take on your question but here goes. Taste in music is very much tied to generations in 5 - 10 year blocks. You are 20ish and I'm 68 so the music on "my youth" could be mostly unknown to you. REM is a solid pop band but by no means would I put them anywhere near the top either by music or by lyrics. But that's just my take on them based on comparisons to the bands I grew up with. If you would like to get a sense of what I think is near the top, give several listens to the following: Neil Young - FREEDOM (1989) Ry Cooder - Chicken Skin Music (1976) Rolling Stone - Sticky Fingers (1971) After you have become familiar with these three discs, see if you still think REM are worthy of top of the pack status. One generation to another. Some music really stands the test of time. Cheers. |
