![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Whatever Happened to R.E.M.?
Dec. 11th, 2006 11:32 amOne aspect of music (or probably more precisely, "the music industry") that intrigues me is the career paths of artists/bands. There is the ever compelling need by fans for their idols to remain loyal to their sound and yet evolve so they maintain their relevance to the current climate of art and pop culture - BUT, as the artist, how do you deal with that when creating new material? My fascination is primarily focused on the artistic choices made; however, the behinds-the-scenes stuff is somewhat necessary to see the art in the context of its creation. In other words, it's not VH1's "Behind The Music" that interests me, it's how that experience inspires or destroys the artist(s) involved.
NBC replays an old episode of SNL (the complete 90 minutes) after the new one (coverage varies in each market). Recently, an episode from December 1999 was on and R.E.M. was the musical guest. The utter absence nowadays of R.E.M. in musical conversation sparked my curiosity.
Here is a band that became the epitome of the prevailing sound of a whole genre - college rock/alternative rock. They had intellectual and philosophical credibility from their DIY approach, extensive touring, and Stipe's enigmatic lyrics that hinted at brilliance when you could tell what he was saying. This sowing of a cult following is helpful in prolonging a band when the mainstream gets periodically distracted.
I think they broke into the mainstream and were going strong through Automatic for the People. Chided by critics for not "rocking" or whatever got them to shake up their sound with Monster. While I think the music was more like old-R.E.M.(with louder amps and more aggressive licks), the image was really silly. They seemed to be trying to look younger and hipper, but looked very old and sad to me. While I did like the shift in Adventures in Hi-Fi, I rarely listened to the CD while I had it. My interest had expired.
IMO, R.E.M. had already jumped the shark. But, hey, I said the same thing when U2 starting doing disco (Pop) and was rewarded with their music since.
Should they have just called it quits with Bill Barry's retirement?
Since I haven't heard any of R.E.M.'s stuff since Hi-Fi (other than seeing their videos on MTV/VH1), anyone out there believe they have any clarity on this?
NBC replays an old episode of SNL (the complete 90 minutes) after the new one (coverage varies in each market). Recently, an episode from December 1999 was on and R.E.M. was the musical guest. The utter absence nowadays of R.E.M. in musical conversation sparked my curiosity.
Here is a band that became the epitome of the prevailing sound of a whole genre - college rock/alternative rock. They had intellectual and philosophical credibility from their DIY approach, extensive touring, and Stipe's enigmatic lyrics that hinted at brilliance when you could tell what he was saying. This sowing of a cult following is helpful in prolonging a band when the mainstream gets periodically distracted.
I think they broke into the mainstream and were going strong through Automatic for the People. Chided by critics for not "rocking" or whatever got them to shake up their sound with Monster. While I think the music was more like old-R.E.M.(with louder amps and more aggressive licks), the image was really silly. They seemed to be trying to look younger and hipper, but looked very old and sad to me. While I did like the shift in Adventures in Hi-Fi, I rarely listened to the CD while I had it. My interest had expired.
IMO, R.E.M. had already jumped the shark. But, hey, I said the same thing when U2 starting doing disco (Pop) and was rewarded with their music since.
Should they have just called it quits with Bill Barry's retirement?
Since I haven't heard any of R.E.M.'s stuff since Hi-Fi (other than seeing their videos on MTV/VH1), anyone out there believe they have any clarity on this?
