A friend sent me this link whith the note "because you haven't been angry in a long time." Follow only if you want to be made angry (and are an REM fan of any capacity).

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/art...page01of01.html

Reminds me of the 100 albums you should get rid of. Its a song by song analysis of why the author thinks REM sucks, covering nerly everything from Murmur to New Adventures.

Will

Ha! Clay Jarvis: Go ahead and sell those REM albums, pal. They'd be better appreciated by someone with a brain. You want "great choruses?" Go listen to Abba. Your pathetic Canadian ass is officially irrelevant.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 1:36 am on Sep. 30, 2002)

Wow.

Actually, as a die-hard REM fan from way back, I found it funny. I fell out of my chair when it got to "Near Wild Heaven."

First, the "save ourselves lots of hate mail" disclaimer at the beginning is absolutely right--people change, but the music does not. There is no song writer I've ever thought infallible, and no song writer every one will like.

Personally, I've found Out of Time hard to give a serious listen in recent years. Monster has a rather thick layer of dust on it. I'm still a huge REM fan and I consider all of their music a part of me. What's the problem? The music hasn't changed, but I have. I don't want the angst of Monster or the darkness of Fables like I did.

I wasn't around when the 100 albums to trash thread was new, but I did read the article. All that article and this guy are doing is to attempt to get people to get away from the assumption that, "This band, simply because of the fact that they are this band, is good." It's a noble effort, and they also play the other side by angering people. I think this article goes a bit far, and I like Mike Mills' voice. That's my opinion, and it's just as valid as his--except no online magazine will publish mine (so I have to post it here).

Anyway, I love REM and will never trade those CDs or my bootlegs and I'll buy the next one they release, but it just won't be the same as when I was ages 16-19 and totally transfixed on the literary elements in the albums and the guitar tones and all that...

See, that's what this guy doesn't understand. Just because you don't listen to something anymore doesn't make it any less great. Personally, I don't listen to the Beatles very often any more. But I still think they're the best band to ever pick up musical instruments. Hell, I don't even listen to REM very much any more. But to write off all of those albums as "no good," just because I don't listen to them any more is just moronic.

hey now, i will not not tolerate abba-bashing. they wrote great pop songs, nothing more, nothing less...is that so wrong?

I'm not defending his opinions, but I think he's obviously listened to something again and found it not great now. Maybe he didn't like it in the first place, and was just following rock trends by buying REM albums.

The best blanket statement I've ever heard about them is not them being any type of rock gods, but just simply this: "REM's music is a beautiful room, but not every one knows how to enter it." I don't know where I heard that, but it always struck me.

It seems that as rock is entering into this next decade, it is waiting on its next ground-breaker to come out and shape this decade. Kurt Cobain did that in the 90s. Before that, we had Hammer and Vanilla Ice to amuse us. Right now, it's all this American Idol and boys bands and Brittney Spears, which is basically the same thing.

So as rock waits for someone to lead it in a new direction, the reviewers and writers first have to declare the places it has been as "bad" so that it will seem like our next "savior" will really be saving us from something. It will work for the kids, but not so well for us in college and older. We'll like whatever the new thing is for a little while, and then will be the first to see its flaws and the fact that it's just a repeat of the same stuff we've been seeing for 30 years now.

I agree with the "music doesn't change, people do" sentiments, but his tone, his sick humor, the constant penis jokes shows him to be no kind of genuine journalist expressing a valid opinion. I'd have been much more interested and less infuriated had it been an article about going back to REM and finding that you don't like them anymore. But he made REM out to be something that they never were and discredited music that he himself once saw value in... value that is still there, even if he can't see it any longer. After all, the music hasn't changed, he has.

Will

After reading that article, I am convinced that anyone who can spell "penis" and has a 6th grade grasp on creative writing can get a job at that website. If they had offered up valid reasons as to why they didn't like the songs outside of "My brother would have beat me up and called me a pussy if he heard me listening to that" I would actually have given the article some merit. But no. It's just comical.

I thought it was funny that he did it. I knew I'd violently disagree with it by the end of the disclaimer, so I just sat in for a ride.

I also read the Filthy Critic regularly, and it's the same thing with current movies.

http://bigempire.com/filthy/

It sometimes slams something you like, but it also has valid points buried in there too.
It's not trying to be valid journalism, so you just have to take like you would someone sitting across from you at Arby's.

(Edited by YaDaDaDa at 8:41 pm on Sep. 29, 2002)

This not only makes me angry... it kinda makes me homicidal. R.E.M. is my first musical love and I think many of the points that this fellow is making are completely irrelevant. Who fucking cares if you hate R.E.M.. Keep it to yourself. I don't write self-indulgant essays on why I hate Aerosmith. Life's Rich Pageant is my favorite R.E.M. album and it killed me to read those things. I guess I am just a little to sensitive. According to this fucker that is why I like R.E.M. Oh well... I just better not ever run into him on the streets.

fuck that guy.............long live REM.........

*insert adam sandler noise here*

here is another one some of you should enjoy

review

Oh, that's a clever one...

Most of the time reviewers like these sing the praises of bands like the Figgs--another opening band I've slept through.

Yeah, but Mamma Mia sucked. On the other topic, I think we all know who the saviors of rock should rightfully be...

Nickelback?

Sorry, I just saw their new live footage video on MTV2 and it rocked! The cowboy hats! The flames! The afghan hound hair! Man oh man I was impressed.


Okay, I watched 15 seconds and flipped away in disgust. Darn Canada...

Slipknot?

Huey Lewis & the News?

the Figgs? (see earlier related post)

Me?

There is nothing wrong with Huey Lewis & The News. In fact, a steady diet of "Sports" and "Fore" is what nurtured me into the...um...whatever I am today.

"Heart of Rock & Roll" is really good...

are you talking about "mamma mia" the musical? well of course it sucked, it's a stupid concept for a musical, but i still think that ABBA is just one of those timeless guilty pleasures. anyone who hasnt rode around in their vehicle listening to "knowing me, knowing you" at full blast hasnt truly lived life to its fullest...

Does "Dancing Queen" count or is it ruled out because of it's connection with Muriel's Wedding?

I agree with you. Abba wrote really great pop songs. Nothing more, nothing less.

yall my initials are r.e.m.

just thought id throw that out there

gosh my contributions to the board are so deep..

(Edited by rachel1808 at 8:46 pm on Sep. 30, 2002)

Rachel, that is seriously the shit. I would love to have the initials "REM".

i once knew a girl with the same name (spelled differently) with the same initials. i don't think she was a fan.

I am not Matt Pelham, though we have the same initials.

ive always liked rachel better than rachael though its a little biast of an opinion. what was her middle name? (bet mines better!!)

All ya hafta do is change your name to Ramie Edwina Marroll.

I think the Figgs are cool. At least I did the last time I saw them a couple years ago.