Later REM albums - shockingly bad.

[ambient]

I wouldn’t say their later albums were bad, they were possibly patchy, but I think they had more good songs than not so good songs. The problem is I think, Automatic for the people set the bar ludicrously high for any subsequent album.

[bazzbass]

they were great when no one knew who they were, they were "our secret". We covered a few of their early songs. Only one or two albums after Green appealed to me.

 

As for U2, should have split up after that aweful live version of Party Girl was released. Any band that didn't care if their crappy guitarist's crappy solo was released as their first EP was not deserving of success..............

[toneknob]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/u2-still-refusing-to-take-the-hint-201109224336

 

[toneknob]

Also, Tourfilm from the 1988 Green Tour is second only to Stop Making Sense when it comes to convert films.

[mcnach]

so much bitterness... it's hilarious.

[Billy Apple]

It takes me by surprise now just how massive REM were and how now it's like they never existed.

I trailed off after Green, but do like Up.

[spectoremg]

16 hours ago, mcnach said:

so much bitterness... it's hilarious.

Bitterness, aka opinions. 

[Andy_L]

They're my favourite band, based mostly on the five IRS albums, and Mike Mills is one of my musical templates as a bass player. If I didn't have them to "borrow" from I'd have written only about half of the songs we play.

The mid period five albums clearly struck a chord worldwide and have some of their very best songs (Nightswimming, Find the River). I guess they just got bored after years of just playing the same instruments and songs and tried something different.

For me, NAIH is their last great album. Once Bill Berry left though the heart seemed to go out of it. The last five albums are, to me, the five weakest. All have a few good songs on them but that's a poor return compared to the earlier stuff.

[mcnach]

4 hours ago, spectoremg said:

Bitterness, aka opinions. 

 

I should have qualified my statement, as it reads like a throwaway comment to upset someone, sorry.

 

What I mean is that I often hear people talking badly about successful bands, whether it's REM, or U2, I don't care, and I think I detect an extra level of bitterness that I don't see applied to other bands that didn't make it that big, even when -in my opinion, of course- they lack qualities that the more successful ones got. It's difficult because we quickly get into personal taste. However, while nobody in U2 could be called a 'virtuoso', I think it's at least disingenuous to claim that they can't play their instruments or that they are not 'good enough'. They do what they do pretty well, I think, even if it's not my thing.

 

[skankdelvar]

1 hour ago, mcnach said:

What I mean is that I often hear people talking badly about successful bands, whether it's REM, or U2, I don't care, and I think I detect an extra level of bitterness that I don't see applied to other bands that didn't make it that big, even when -in my opinion, of course- they lack qualities that the more successful ones got.

I take your point entirely and raise the notion that there are multiple perspectives on successful bands. One perspective is - as you correctly identify - that any successful band deserves to be slagged off. It is a mean-spirited perspective but stems from human nature.

Another perspective is that (i) any band that sticks around long enough will release a significant number of albums or singles (ii) the 'quality' or appeal of the material will vary (iii) there may be a detectable trend from 'good' to 'bad' and (iv) people will argue to the death about what's good and what's bad, particularly Bob Dylan fans.

Comparatively 'unsuccessful' bands may issue only one or two albums before they fall from prominence. This makes it difficult to detect a trend. For example, I might observe that Bram Tchaikovsky's first album was better than his (their) second but the truth is that the single Girl Of My Dreams* is the only song that matters.

By contrast we might look at The Be*tles, The Stones, Zep and many others, and conclude that there is an observable curve in the quality of these bands' output, the reasons for which are now the stuff of legend. Then there's AC/DC who have (to an extent) bucked the trend by simply releasing the same album over and over again**.

 

* Written by Heavy Metal Kids bass player Ronnie Thomas - look out the YouTube vid about how he wrote it
** Yes, I know the first albums are bluesier, that Bon Scott is different to Brian Johnson in voice and lyrical theme, and that the band sags from the mid-80's to the mid-noughties but you know what I mean.

[mcnach]

2 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Then there's AC/DC who have (to an extent) bucked the trend by simply releasing the same album over and over again**.

 

 

 !!!

[spectoremg]

4 hours ago, mcnach said:

 

I should have qualified my statement, as it reads like a throwaway comment to upset someone, sorry.

 

What I mean is that I often hear people talking badly about successful bands, whether it's REM, or U2, I don't care, and I think I detect an extra level of bitterness that I don't see applied to other bands that didn't make it that big, even when -in my opinion, of course- they lack qualities that the more successful ones got. It's difficult because we quickly get into personal taste. However, while nobody in U2 could be called a 'virtuoso', I think it's at least disingenuous to claim that they can't play their instruments or that they are not 'good enough'. They do what they do pretty well, I think, even if it's not my thing.

 

Now I agree with you 😁

[spectoremg]

Conversely Geddy Lee has never written or played a bad note. His best work was obviously done on a Fender 😂

[Pseudonym]

Might the deterioration in quality have something to do with losing Scott Litt as a producer? I also suspect the band outlasted their natural longevity in the musical ecosystem and then broke up before there was any chance of a reinvention or a sustainable late style. Eventual loss of purpose isn't the worst fate for an influential band, I suppose. Some of their earlier work still sounds like it could have been made last week, which is probably as good a legacy as any.

[lou24d53]

It's the 25th Anniversary of Monster this year...I love that album.

Regurgitating the thread slightly and appreciate where the OP is coming from, however, I would argue Leaving New York is a great album...drastically different to those before very morose, and I'd suggest the band themselves probably realised they'd peaked and reached their shelf life.

But their later albums would still wipe the floor with half the stinky poo coming out today.

My favourite R.E.M. song of all time has to be Country Feedback.

[lou24d53]

Probably worthy of a thread in itself, but Basschat makes me want to (a) listen to music I love and have otherwise forgotten about; and (b) seek out new music to check out from other posters suggestions, comments and recommendations.