FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: LJ on March 07, 2010, 06:07:49 PM
-
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other, I think there are REM people and U2 people.
I am REM all the way. Murmur and Life's Rich Pageant are some of the most stunningly beautiful pieces of pop ever to be written. I tried to get into U2 for years and finally gave up. I find The Edge an adequate guitar player, the rhythm section is solid and Bono is, well, Bono. However, the music is what counts and it's never set me on (an unforgettable) fire. It has a pretentious affect that turns me off. On the other hand, REM's first 5 or so albums were masterworks that bear repeated listening.
Yes, the superlative bent to this post is intentional.
Thoughts? Have one or the other shaped how you approach music?
-
I lean heavily toward REM but early U2 doesn't bother me.
-
I'm a strong neither.
-
If we could go back to 1990 I'd say REM by a mile, but 15 years of terrible records makes it impossible for me to hear what I liked about REM anymore. So U2 wins.
-
I think that early REM is good but I think that U2 is more consistent overall.
-
I'm a strong neither.
What he said.
-
REM in a landslide. I can't even listen to any U2 songs back to back without feeling slightly agitated. REM is classic and when I saw them with Modest Mouse and The National, put on a fairly impressive live show given their age.
-
REM still does a great live show. Their studio albums were solid for years and years.
I would argue that no band successfully puts out quality records for that long. If Radiohead is still putting out albums 15 years from now, I imagine they won't be that great.
I wish REM would stop, actually, but that's selfish.
U2 was fun and did good work up till halfway through Achtung Baby, then they became insufferable. I like a couple of songs on the one with New York and Beautiful Day, but I started to like Bono less than Sonny Bono at that point. Sonny Bono was a Republican, but he didn't pal around with Jesse Helms.
-
I really dislike both of them. I'm just a teeny bit too young to have been around for REM's "golden years" since Green was the first time I heard about them. I've tried going back to those early albums and though there are a few good tracks sprinkled throughout, there's just a fundamental disconnect with me.
The self-importance and pomposity of the U2 stuff has always bothered me. I never liked them, even when I was a teenager and The Joshua Tree was the biggest thing in the history of ever. While everyone around me was going crazy over it, I was going crazy over Back in Black and Are You Experienced?
-
I thought this would be more polarized. They were both critical "college rock"darlings in their day who both became huge, U2 to a much larger extent.
"I would argue that no band successfully puts out quality records for that long. If Radiohead is still putting out albums 15 years from now, I imagine they won't be that great."
I agree. To that end, I'll risk being called an apostate and say that Radiohead has never put out a decent album.
-
Whatever, I like R.E.M. You know who else likes R.E.M.? The inventor of the mp3 blog. He is also a FOT.
-
REM is great, while U2 has only a few decent albums. So REM wins.
Neither band is the best of anything.
-
I agree. To that end, I'll risk being called an apostate and say that Radiohead has never put out a decent album.
I'm with you.
-
It's one thing to say, "I haven't liked any Radiohead albums," or, more specifically, "I don't like Radiohead" - nobody is everybody's cup of tea, and I never try to convince anyone to like or appreciate anything they don't.
Still, a lot of forgettable - and instantly forgotten - hipster junk gets mentioned in these pages with nary a comment. Do we have to start piling on Radiohead?
Everyone should really try out those rare Rumbretica 78s, and these new things I've discovered from Bernhardt Glückman called "Air Mixes."
-
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
-
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
I was going to post the Beatles/Stones thing, but you beat me to it.
-
You are either a Charo person or a Godflesh person.
-
You're either a Shunt McGuppin or Mutt Taylor person.
-
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
Yeah, that didn't register with me either.
You're a Leonard Cohen person or you're a Barry Manilow person.
-
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
I don't like it, but I believe we can blame Tarintino for it.
Yeah, that didn't register with me either.
You're a Leonard Cohen person or you're a Barry Manilow person.
-
You are either a Merzbow person or an Anne Murray person.
-
I choose REM because Michael Stipe is not nearly the douche bag that Bono and The Edge are. I think Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr. hate those two more than anyone else in the world. They even had a side project Mike Mills and Michael Stipe (Clayton and Mullen did).
-
I'm "eh" with both of them. I think I missed out on the whole college rock thing by not going to college.
-
I think you're either a Barbra Streisand person or a Klansman.
-
You're either a Son Volt person or a Wilco person. You can't be both... or neither.
-
You're either a GG Allin person or an actual person.
-
Although probably useless without his effects, The Edge had a unique sound in his time. I think he could have done a lot better composing instrumentals without that braying donkey he had for a singer.
-
Beatles or Rolling Stones or Beatles or Elvis. The latter was from Pulp Fiction.
It's interesting to see the criteria people use to distinguish between the two.
-
I've never seen REM appear from inside a gigantic disco-ball lemon.
-
You're either a GG Allin person or an actual person.
Heheh.
-
I'm with REM. This decision was solidified when Bono decided to freestyle rap on SNL a few months back. Douchechill inducing.
-
I'm with REM. This decision was solidified when Bono decided to freestyle rap on SNL a few months back. Douchechill inducing.
That shouldn't be entirely unexpected. In fact, before he was in U2, Bono used to sell mixtapes out of the trunk of his car.
-
REM in a landslide. Even though the past 10 years or so haven't been good, I can't say that any record they've put out is awful. To still be able to make even mediocre records for this long is pretty amazing, and the stretch they had on IRS is something very few bands bands can rival.
Any band that has been around as long as U2 should be able to produce a dozen or so songs that you can like, so even though there are plenty of songs I like, there isn't one album that I can listen to in it's entirety. War's about as close as it comes and half of that album isn't very good.
-
With the Beatles or Stones arguement there are also people that say neither - the Kinks. What band would be the Kinks in the REM/U2 argument? I can't think of the right metaphor of a band myself.
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
-
With the Beatles or Stones arguement there are also people that say neither - the Kinks. What band would be the Kinks in the REM/U2 argument? I can't think of the right metaphor of a band myself.
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
Game Theory?
-
According to my folks, who were born in the 40s, the popularity battles were primarily between
Elvis Presley vs Tommy Steele (the "UK Elvis" who was very popular in the UK and Sweden at one point and then quickly faded)
then
The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
and later
Tim Dog vs NWA
-
There's a mathematical take on this. You know I am compelled to try it.
-
I have four REM records and two U2 records.
So I guess I like REM twice as much.
-
OK, I assess the entire career, live albums included, but rereleases and compilations excluded. The idea is to simplify the question by eliminating pairs of albums (yes, I call them albums) that are approximately equivalent in quality. You eventually wind up with a set of records upon which you can make a decision. Of course, this all my opinion. I unapologetically love both bands.
These pairings are roughly equivalent in my view.
Achtung Baby
Murmur
The Joshua Tree
Reckoning
War
Automatic for the People
All That You Can't Leave Behind
Fables of the Reconstruction
Zooropa
Accelerate
The Unforgettable Fire
Live at the Olympia
How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Green
New Adventures in Hi-Fi
Hasta La Vista Baby
No Line on the Horizon
Reveal
Rattle and Hum
REM Live
Pop
Out of Time
SO, with those equivalent selected discographies out of the way, here's what's left to decide who's better
REM: Life's Rich Pageant, Document, Monster, Up, Around the Sun
U2: Boy, Under a Blood Red Sky, October
Since Monster's not great, and I hope to never hear Up or Around the Sun ever again, I will follow U2.
-
I think your considering Murmur and Achtung Baby equivalent may make you a few enemies, Dave.
-
Lifes Rich Pageant and Document are great, though Document is overrated. I really like Monster. Around the Sun and Accelerate aren't really REM to me - REM is Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe, and maybe Up if you say "well, they were carrying on from what they were still doing at that point."
-
I saw U2 on the first leg of the Joshua Tree tour in Worcester, Mass. in 1987 and it gave me chills. They really knew how to work a crowd. I listened to Unforgettable Fire cassette in my Nissan Sentra until most of the music was scraped off of it. I thought the Joshua Tree was a pretty great pop album, and when Achtung and then Achtung part 2 (Zooropa) were interesting if increasingly pretentious.
Due to the fact that they were such an important part of my youth, I have always kept them subconsciously on my radar, waiting with each album release for at least a touch of that same magic... but alas, it was not to be.
Bono's rapping and other crimes against humanity (far too many to mention) are regrettable and embarrassing. But there must be a reason they remain the biggest grossing live band today... Is the musical landscape THAT barren these days? Is this all we have left??
Their last album was just plain awful.... somehow, they just keep getting worse and worse.
REM played a gig at an outdoor arena in Helsinki last summer, but it was pouring rain, so was kind of glad I didn't drop a bazillion euros on a ticket for a chilly night in the rain... But as I happened to bicycle by the gig that night on the way home from work, they sounded pretty great. That said, I never really got into REM because of my pretentiousness radar (which apparently for some reason did not detect Bono untiil 1990)... even back when they were super good, still indie-credible, Michael Stipe was a bit tiresome, no?
-
Achtung Baby gets a 10 out of 10 from me and is one of my most-listened-to albums. I like some other things they've done, but with the help of some very flattering production they captured a mood on that album that it would be nigh impossible for them to tap into again.
-
With the Beatles or Stones arguement there are also people that say neither - the Kinks. What band would be the Kinks in the REM/U2 argument? I can't think of the right metaphor of a band myself.
I have a theory that there are two kinds of people. Well, more than two, but for the purpose of this topic, two. Just like there are supposedly Beatles people and Elvis people and you're one or the other...
WHUUUUUT? I having a hard time seeing the connection (I guess I see the U2 and REM early 80s college rock thing). Do you mean Beatles and Rolling Stones? Weird theory either way.
And anyway, you're either a Bob Dylan person or Bob Marley person.
This is inelegant, but maybe the Kinks are the Replacements given that they were big with the college rock crowd.
-
I think your considering Murmur and Achtung Baby equivalent may make you a few enemies, Dave.
How can I have enemies? I'm so nice.
-
Achtung Baby gets a 10 out of 10 from me and is one of my most-listened-to albums. I like some other things they've done, but with the help of some very flattering production they captured a mood on that album that it would be nigh impossible for them to tap into again.
Chris L is wise indeed
-
"With the Beatles or Stones arguement there are also people that say neither - the Kinks. What band would be the Kinks in the REM/U2 argument? I can't think of the right metaphor of a band myself."
I have been thinking about this all day long. Are the Yardbirds too short lived? If so, George Jones?
-
Achtung Baby gets a 10 out of 10 from me and is one of my most-listened-to albums. I like some other things they've done, but with the help of some very flattering production they captured a mood on that album that it would be nigh impossible for them to tap into again.
Chris L is wise indeed
I'm actually in agreement here, too. I think the interesting (esp. for the time) rough sonic edges plus the band's acknowledgment of themselves as a product rather than the savior of the world makes for a really unique listening experience. It's a precarious balance to maintain, though, and they tip the scales too far with their next release.
-
I am still baffled by this. I don't see what U2 has to do with the 1980s college rock thing. The bands equally ascended to rock superstardom but came out of very different scenes, and never really competed with each other or had a rivalry. Maybe there's a whole chapter of rock history I don't know about because, however good both bands have been, neither are that interesting to read about.
If they're not the Beatles/Stones, how could there be a Kinks? It's like asking "Who's the Throwing Muses of Depeche Mode and Mozart?"
And if there was to be a 1980s college rock Kinks, it would be the Replacements.
-
I am still baffled by this. I don't see what U2 has to do with the 1980s college rock thing. The bands equally ascended to rock superstardom but came out of very different scenes, and never really competed with each other or had a rivalry.
I don't think it's anything more complicated than both bands were, by and large, beloved initially by the college/new-wave/underground rock audience of the 1980s and then went on to massive mainstream success. I don't think anyone's trying to say they were rivals or that they have similar sounds.
-
It boils down to the classic battle between alphanumeric names and acronyms.