I think we should stay away from stating what is good, better best. I happen to particularly like three bands from the 1980s: U2, R.E.M., and The Smiths. In answer to the original poster's question, I agree that the last two are less well known than U2, certainly in part because they haven't been active for a long 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
@bdp24, I agree, you're too old for them. R.E.M. was a great band. A big shout out to Don Dixon and Mitch Easter as producers on the first few albums. The band evolved and lost early fans and gained many more new fans, but if anything, they kept it real. Well as real as being wealthy, traveling around the world in private jets while playing rock and roll to screaming fans can be real. They might not have been greatest instrumentalists, but the were solid all around, particularly the drummer. |
rem was fantastic, but (like the byrds, the cars and the ramones) they hit their artistic peak right out of the gate w/chronic town and murmur--for me everything that came after marked a gradual, but noticeable decline--i rarely listen to anything after document. i also agree that the more they mumbled the lyrics the better they were. |
@onhwy61: Don Dixon---NOW yer talkin'! I love his stuff, and his gal Marti Jones' as well. As for The Ramones and The Byrds peaking out of the gate, I must disagree. The Ramones took a giant leap forward when Marky replaced Tommy on drums (the Road To Ruin LP). Marky is a much more muscular, punchy drummer than was Tommy, which really helped the band. By-the-way, they were the loudest band I ever heard live, far louder than even The Who. The early Byrds albums are fantastic, but so are the middle and late period ones. Every musician I knew had the Sweetheart Of The Rodeo album, and the addition of Telecaster-master Clarence White turned them into a serious band (though drummer Gene Parsons was kinda lame, very sloppy, over-playing like crazy. He didn't understand how to play country music). |
- 95 posts total