Talk:R.E.M. (band)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Trimming History

I suggest we trim the history section a little bit, or give it a content fork. Usually i wouldn't mind about such a large section but its currently full of useless, minor and unnotable information thats dragged out too long. Some examples of this are tge announcement of the new compliation album and the part about the band starting to record in the fall.--ScythedRunner 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

The picture we currently have in the box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Padova_REM_concert_July_22_2003_blue.jpg) should be removed from the infobox considering Micheal is the only band member whos face and body you can easily see and isnt really fit like the other ones. --ScythedRunner 04:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I'm pretty sure that's Scott McCaughey on bass in the picture, not Mike Mills. Molerat 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Isn't this article praising the band too much to preserve the neutrality standard? For instance, how should one interpret "one of the world's greatest bands of all time"? If the author is referring to the bands previous huge commercial success, then please write this explicitly. As it is mentioned in the article itself, the band doesn't have the same popularity as in early 90's, specially in U.S.A. "Hopefully much more too come" is also too subjective, in my opinion.

It is written in the beginning of the article: "[...]they inspired countless bands[...]". This is, if not further explained, another reckless statement. Is it possible for the author to give explicit examples of bands who are inspired by R.E.M.?

Having said these things, I think this is otherwise a very solid article. -Atzbacher2

You are completely correct. These are relatively new changes (I searched back and some worse NPOV violations have been fixed) and should never have occured. I'm going to change it. I don't recognize R.E.M. post-Berry so I don't read that section usually so that's probably why I missed that mistake. And the impact of R.E.M. is explained in the Legacy section. That should be expanded, but it is there.
Thanks for your comments! Bsd987 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the legacy section to a more logical position, but this section really needs some work to make it (a)NPOV and (b)factual. Are Oasis and Blur really keepers of the REM legacy? 82.38.206.208 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"the band found themselves able to put forth political and environmental concerns from within a popular music scene that often chose not to take a stand." Yes, they made P.C. saleable. I love them all the same. --Fantailfan 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you guys something? Do you really think that picture of REM is the best one to represent the band's entire history? Considering 1. it doesn't have Bill Berry in it, and 2. it's horrible. I could point you to some much more characteristic photoshoots of the band even during their 3-member era. In fact I'm sure some of the others in the article would make a nice replacement up at the top. This is an important band, let's not make them look like latter day Rod Stewart, even if their last couple albums almost put them in that category.

TOTALLY AGREE. now why is the picture back to that cheesy Q cover again??

Agreed, the picture definitely needs to be replaced by something earlier/cooler. Perhaps the current photo could be placed in the "R.E.M. After Berry (1997-2003)" section. Kafuffle 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several photos of the 4 after Berry left, they played at a wedding party a few months ago and there are photos of that which are a) recent and b) show all 4 of them together, I'm sure you can find them on www.remhq.com and they would let you use them.

Indeed - As a long time R.E.M. fan the first thing that struck me is that the picture was not representative of the band. Frankly it is shitty pickture of Stipe and doesn't satisfy my desire to know what each of the key guys looks like. Whomever has a hard-on for this picture - ask yourself honestly whether your perspective is more intimate than the rest of us.


Why am I having problems editing this page?
GTBacchus 07:50 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, works for me. Try asking at wikipedia:village pump if problems persist... -Martin

An anonymous contributor queried the brackets in following line

As their career progressed the sound became more mainstream, which eventually led to their first chart success with "The One I Love" (due mainly, however, to a misunderstanding of the song's lyric).

I removed the anon's comment from the article but as this seems like an interesting but unexplained titbitc, could anyone elaborate on it? Thanks, Pete 09:03, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've done my best. Kricxjo 09:32, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks Kricxjo. Pete 10:31, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


The first paragraph of History is somewhat confusing. It says:

"Mike Mills (b. 17 December 1958, Orange County, California, USA; bass) and Bill Berry (b. 31 July 1958, Duluth, Minnesota, USA; drums) were the only Southerners in the group."

If Bill Berry was born in Minnesota, he's not a southerner. Michael Stipe is. I think the writer confused something. Someone with more authority on the subject should fix this or at least make it clear. Having confusion in the first section of the article sort of casts a bad light on the rest.

Congaratulations, you discovered a gap in Wikipedia. Michael Stiped lived in many places and even countries during his childhood, because he was an army brat. Try reading some biographies from the external links, they reveal that also other R.E.M. members didn't stay in their birthplaces during their childhood. I am not USian, so I don't know what makes a proper Southener, though. -Hapsiainen 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I favour removing the descriptions of each album and placing them each in an article devoted to the album, like what has been done with Cocteau Twins, for example. Band articles should be concise and to-the-point. If the reader wishes to know more details about a particular album, he can go to that album page. For example, details about what "Kohoutek" is named after, for instance, should be at Fables of the Reconstruction then on the main band page. Kricxjo 18:03, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Conversely ordinarily my preference is to have more substantial, if fewer, articles so that one subject is covered in one place rather than spread across several pages, unless the subject is very big. However I don't have the knowledge to provide content to REM page(s) so I am absolutely happy for the writers of the page such as yourself to figure out the best solution for this particular case. Pete 18:49, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

At least the album cover images should be removed from the main article. They are already in their own articles, so they take take room in the main article to no purpose. They are also non-NPOV, because they hint, which could be the best R.E.M. albums. However, there are no consensus among fans about it, the opinions divide remarkably. Someone else would like to put the cover of Fables of the Reconstruction or Automatic for the People to the main article, for instance.

I put them there, but I agree. Aaron Hill 10:22, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Truly non NPOV

On the later years: "....but they had not stopped producing compelling records." I, and many other longtime REM fans, would argue that they had stopped producing compelling records after Monster, or at the very least after New Adventures In HiFi. I am not alone in this opinion - I have heard it better enunciated by music critics who argue that REM post Monster is REM Pop or REM Light. There is hardly universal consensus that Reveal is a compelling record. And compelling does not mean popular, or profitable, or good. I would argue that an album or song could be any of those things and not be compelling. This is a loaded critical word that should be removed from an encyclopedic article - it represents one side of an ongoing debate in the music community and amongst REM fans --Xinoph 02:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sad to say, but you're right. NPOV applies even to pop culture articles. - Nat Krause 03:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I read carefully the whole paragraph, and changed the beginning of it. Now it should be both more NPOV and more descriptive. But there are also other problematic sentences. "2001's Reveal, confirms the return to an even mellower songwriting approach, with songs such as "Imitation of Life", "All The Way To Reno (You're Gonna Be A Star)" and "She Just Wants To Be" garnering some radio play." Some fans have criticized Reveal being over-produced, and having corny or even clichéic lyrics (sugar cane - Hollywood). Thus describing the record mellow is hardly NPOV. Any ideas how the sentence should be? And Around the Sun needs describing. It is odd that most reviews in English have been lukewarm or negative, but all the Finnish reviews I've read gave the album four stars. Herd behaviour? Schizophrenic zeitgeist? You decide. -Hapsiainen 14:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Kahoutek as a love long?

I remember reading several years ago that Kahoutek isn't a love song, it's a song about Patti Smith and her career... I don't remember the source but I think it might be a misstatement (or at least an imcomplete statement) to refer to Kahoutek as a love song in the article.

The discussion page is almost as bad as the feature article on R.E.M. as the song is called Kohoutek - indeed, with an O. The Patti Smith reference is new to me and would be out of place as song subject on an album about southern story telling, imho.
--Europeia 12:12, 15 May 2006 (CET)

Sales figures for Reveal and Around the Sun

The US and worldwide sales figures for Reveal and Around the Sun don't appear to be anywhere close to accurate. Can someone cite some sources on these numbers? Reveal was only certified gold in the US. According those figures, it'd have been certified Platinum and that's not the case. Around the Sun hasn't even been certified Gold in the US yet.

Sales figures for Out of Time

The UK sales figures for "Out of Time" are also almost certainly wrong. As far as I am aware, no album has ever sold 6 million copies in the UK.

Out Of Time has been certified 6 times platinum in the UK. But Platinum is 300,000, not a million like America.

Wikilyrics Link

Several users have posted a link to this page's entry on a site called Wikilyrics: http://pcking.ca/wikilyrics/index.php/Category:REM . The page has 50 articles of R.E.M. song lyrics but Hapsiainen and Pyrop have deleted the link saying that it does not have enough content. Personally, I think the link should be allowed. Wikilyrics appears to be a growing wiki and the open-source/no-ad style of the site is something the other R.E.M. lyrics pages can't boast. What do other people think?

Wikipedia's job isn't to link to the best wiki-sources out there, it's to link to the best sources period. We already have comprehensive lyrics sites linked to, so we don't need Wikilyrics further cluttering up the page. Philthecow 00:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
The Wikiyrics Artice is now almost comprehensive and now contains 114 pages of song lyrics. I agree that the Wikilyrics link should be reinstated. Kafuffle 22:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute?

Just stumbled across this article... what fact is disputed here? The {{accuracy}} tag should only be used when there are specific facts which some users dispute. If there's an NPOV dispute it's not obvious - is this the one from November? If nobody is making an effort to resolve problems with this article, the tag should simply be removed. Rhobite 05:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing what is disputed, the only clue being from November, I've fixed up the POV I could find and made small enhancements to the article. I'm removing the accuracy dispute tag. If you put it back, please clearly make a list of the facts you disagree with in the article. I guess I don't understand the fuss here, this article is very well-written and mostly free of neutrality problems. The only thing that worries me is the speculation about the next album, this needs to be cited or removed. Rhobite 21:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it the record sales? It is discussed above. And there wasn't POV template in the article, it was an accuracy template instead. -Hapsiainen 00:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
From what you said above it sounded like there was a POV dispute, sorry. You're right, the album sales figures appear to be inaccurate. Instead of placing an accuracy tag on the article it would be better to remove them until they can be verified. I hid the album sales, and listed the discography by itself. Rhobite 00:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Why is Chronic Town not listed as their first release? Why is it barely mentioned anywhere in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.93.110 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 June 2006

1) It's not an album, so it's not listed under "studio albums". It's an EP.
2) The first paragraph under "The IRS Years" is about Chronic Town.
I suspect that you misread the article. "Radio Free Europe" was recorded and released as a single before Chronic Town and then re-recorded for Murmur. The 1983 single and video were for the Murmur version; the original single version appears on Eponymous. -- ChrisB 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New drummer

Article says: This is the first record to feature their full-time replacement of Bill Berry - Bill Rieflin. It may give you an idea that Bill Rieflin is now the member of R.E.M. which he is not. He is a session and tour drummer just like Joey Waronker was. --Tbonefin 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. also mentioned Berry's recent "comeback" performances.

Singles

I'm a fairly new R.E.M. fan (just over a year, not back to 1988, as is needed), so can't do this myself, but I'm sure there's a section missing from the singles - only Get Up is listed in the period where Green was, missing out Orange Crush, Stand, Pop Song 89 (maybe more, I don't know). I don't know dates or chart positions, so if someone knows these, could you put any missing Green singles in please? - Chingwakabungya

Was "Losing My Religion" really the first lip-sync video?

I seem to remember in one of my several books on the band (either "It Crawled from the South" or "R.E.M. Inside Out" that this was actually NOT the first video in which Michael Stipe lip-synched. I actually remember reading that he lip-synched one of the band's early videos, wasn't happy with the results, and swore never to do it again... that is, until "Losing My Religion." Not being at home right now, I don't have access to either of those books, but I seem to remember the video in question being for "Wolves, Lower" (which can be seen on the "Succumbs" compilation). BinaryTed 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. It's on p. 290 of It Crawled... search the full text of the book on Amazon. I dare say that this article has gotten out of hand with editing by people who really don't know very much about R.E.M. Lord Kelvin 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation, I thought I was going crazy there for a second. I'll make some appropriate edits to reflect this. BinaryTed 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard that it was "Southern Central Rain (I'm Sorry)", or whatever you want to call that song. But yeah, LMR supposedly was not the first song that Stipe lip-synced the video for. Bsd987 18:27, 26 December 2005.
The vocal for the "So. Central Rain" video was delivered live by Stipe to the backing track of the recording; the rest of the band mimed their parts.
Wolves Lower was lip synched, but never commercially released as the result was so disastrous. It is not on the Succumbs compilation (at least, not my copy). S. Central Rain was recorded live; Michael's vocal take on the video version is different to the album/single version. So LMR was the first lip-synch, commercial released REM video. OlderBrother 20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)