If R.E.M. Makes A Comeback Album And Nobody Hears It, Does It Still Rock?

Anybody remember R.E.M.? In the late '90s, with a decade and a half of steadily increasing record sales and unflagging critical fawning, they were one of the biggest bands in the world, ready to assume their place on the musical Mount Olympus alongside all the other all-time greats.

But a funny thing happened on the way there. An illness-plagued world tour in 1995 led to drummer Bill Berry quitting the band, and for the next decade their music sounded like, no pun intended, they'd missed a beat. As their studio albums sank into a lackluster, intermittently inspired rut of bland, midtempo pop, their fan base deserted them - at least in the States, where their last album, 2004's Around The Sun, missed the Top Ten and failed to go gold. While they can still pack large theaters and arenas, the crowds are getting older, and they head to the restrooms during the newer songs.

2008 finds R.E.M. in a weird position. They're not quite living legends who can coast on their reputation like the Stones or even Van Halen. They're not influential forefathers of any particular movement - you don't hear young new bands trying to imitate Murmur or Life's Rich Pageant. But they're not really current, either; a new R.E.M. album can no longer generate the same enthusiasm that, say, a U2 album does. And while their live act has gotten stronger over the last several years, they haven't been road dogs since the '80s.

For the remaining faithful, a listen to their 14th and latest album, Accelerate, will feel like a vindication of sorts. It's R.E.M.'s long-promised return to rock, and for the first time in ages they sound like a band again, fully awake and engaged. It's nothing they haven't done before, really - here it sounds a little like Monster, there a little like Document - but they haven't done it so well for so long that anyone who still cares about them is bound to be thrilled.

The question is, who still cares? How many of the millions who stopped buying their records ten years ago will be lured back into the fold? Will any of the music fans who've come of age in the dozen years since R.E.M.'s commercial star began to fall even know who they are, let alone be motivated to listen?

One of the biggest blessings and biggest curses of how we listen to music today is that we can avoid so much of it. Inescapable hit singles or blockbuster albums are becoming ever rarer with the fragmentation of terrestrial and online radio, the death of music TV that actually plays music, and even the demise of record stores. With fewer and fewer outlets for pop music to be a communal experience, we're all stuck in our own musical orbits, with our own favorite blogs and niche market satellite radio stations and iPod playlists. And if R.E.M. isn't in that mix, will anyone feel like they're missing out?

Well, this longtime fan hopes you'll search out a blogger who's posted tracks from the album, or watch the video for "Supernatural Superserious" that's playing on Amazon.com, or even, heaven forbid, find a radio station that still plays R.E.M. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the must-hear albums of the year, regardless of whether it stops the attrition of their fan base. At the very least it should remind you why so many people cared so passionately about this band for so long.

Comments

[pthalomarie]

It's funny, everyone lauds U2 as a model of artistic consistency and relevance, but I think they've fallen off a lot more than R.E.M. has. R.E.M.'s sound changed in the last 10 years, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Like Tony, I thought their recent output has been underrated, and if you skim old reviews of those albums, by and large they received gushing reviews at the time, so it strikes me as a bit phony for critics to imply that they haven't listened to/ liked R.E.M.'s post-Berry releases.

I agree that Reveal was comparatively weak, but taken on their own, the last 3 are good-to-very good albums. And while the band does have great rockers, it wasn't their bread and butter the way the article implies. They really only had three "rocking" albums before this - Document, Life's Rich Pageant, and Green. Monster has its rocking moments, but in hindsight, it has more mellow tunes than is generally assumed.

The article brings up good points about the problem with getting a record heard these days, but keep in mind that R.E.M. chose this route. They chose not to add a regular drummer, chose to slow down and soften their sound, and chose not to remake Murmur or Out of Time a dozen times over. I doubt they were surprised that their sales have declined; they haven't really aspired to making hit in the first place..

[Michael Giltz]

I can't help wishing REM had stopped as a band when Bill Berry left, just like I wish Woody Allen would stop making movies because the flood of bad ones diminishes the good ones. Nonetheless, I faithfully buy every album they put out, even if I can barely listen to them more than a few times. My favorite REM ploy is when they would talk about the new album by trashing the most previous one -- even classics like Life's rich Pageant. They'd say, oh the last album was not what we wanted at all but this one is great. Are you clearly stating that they haven't had a good album since Automatic for the People (their last classic) rather than michael stipes understandably defensive feeling that their recent albums have been unfairly maligned or compared to classics? Sorry, dude. That's what you get for making classics. If Tony says yes, the last five or so albums were awful but this one sounds lively again, I'll be thrilled. Just not sure if you drank the Kool Aid on the last few. Finally, I agree with everyone else who says REM has been wildly influential. Surely Americana has some roots in Murmur, Fables, etc.

[ShawnMichel]

REM is, in fact, a heavily seminal band, one whose influence is still being mined--and will be mined for years to come.

The death of corporate rock, the Internet, and the explosion of indie groups--this is all a good thing. May Clear Channel burn to the ground!

That said, it's impossible to keep the truly great down--provided, of course, that the truly great does not keep *themselves* down. And REM is, in fact, truly great.

[zenobiadarcy]

I agree with you that they are truly great. I did not know they lost their fan base though. I think those who liked those that became hits just could not appreciate the rest of their music. I cannot name many that have a voice like Michael Stipe. Kate Bush maybe. Wonderful.

[carmenjonze]

MIchael Stipe's voice will always suk.

[leftbehind2000]

I'd beg to differ with the idea that R.E.M. is not a seminal influence on today's music. Listen to college radio any afternoon and you will hear music undoubtedly sprung from the tree planted by Michael Stipe and the boys from Athens.

I'd also suggest that anyone who would say that R.E.M. isn't a Monster (pun intended) on par with Van Halen is showing his age more than anything else. Ask my 16 year old son who is a legend he'd want to go see - R.E.M. or some has-been geriatrics like The Rolling Stones.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

life's rich pageant... wow I would live to hear a new band try to imitate that sound. fuckin GREAT album.

glad to hear their new stuff sounds good. I was a huge rem fan back in the day... it would be great to hear them rock again.

[Beaux510]

REM will always rock. Even when they refuse to. I hated them until a friend made me go see them on their GREEn tour, after that, big fan. I even hit on Peter Buck's wife one time (didn't know) at her club just for good measure.

As for the radio stations that will play the new album, well...

I just heard "Man Sized Wreath" on the radio, where you ask?

www.kexp.org

In Seattle that's 90.3fm
in New York City 91.5fm Radio Liberation

Or streaming on the web 24/7

Where the MUSIC matters

[MajorKong]

It's funny that I tend to think of REM and U2 as "new" bands when they've been around for 25 years or so.

[PeteBogs]

if they are no longer superstars, it just means they can go back to being the underground alt group they were... they will always have a following...

[leftbehind2000]

they invented "alt". Yet they're "not quite influential" and "not quite living legends."

Go figure.

[Shake-A-Spear]

U2? Radiohead? R.E.M.? Gimme Bare Naked Ladies any day.

[Beaux510]

dude, BNL are just awful. They make me want to open up a vein.

[leftbehind2000]

ditto

[jalyx]

Can't wait to hear it. They've had an amazing run for a long time.
Which leads me to this question...

Who is the best AMERICAN band ever?
(not as easy as it might seem, fun conversation at parties.)

I'd put R.E.M. in my top 5.

[lenzorizzo]

The Tubes circa 1977.

[strifeknot]

Pavement
The Velvet Underground
The Stooges
Sonic Youth

[leftbehind2000]

excellent taste.

for me, it would be hard not to include dinosaur jr.

[eanderso]

R.E.M. and U2 have been my favorite bands since circa 1983-84, so I have a pretty heavy bias. That said, "Around the Sun" was a clunker of epic proportions, and the first R.E.M. album since I first started listening that I didn't purchase.

I listened to an early copy of the new album on the way to work this morning, and to me it reminds me of when U2 decided it was okay to sound like U2 again, starting with "All That You Can't Leave Behind." It's definitely a return to form, and "Supernatural Superserious" is classic R.E.M. Given the current political climate and the state of the world today, the best way to sum up how I feel about "Accelerate" is like this:

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

[bhyman]

Well, I haven't heard the new album yet, but I fully intend to buy it soon. I have been a fan for years and do consider them living legends in the indie world. Early R.E.M. albums were clearly an influence of the only legendary band touring and creating fantastic new music today, Radiohead. Although they may never come close to the Stones or U2 as measured by album sales, they are a part of the chain of legendary indie bands that have pushed the boundaries of new music. Velvet Underground -> R.E.M. -> Radiohead -> etc.

[sureshot]

"As their studio albums sank into a lackluster, intermittently inspired rut of bland, midtempo pop, their fan base deserted them - at least in the States, where their last album, 2004's Around The Sun, missed the Top Ten and failed to go gold"

I liked the last 3 records and I LOVED "Around The Sun." I thought it was a nice path for them, aging gracefully with good songwriting. Now I see this new one and them "trying to rock," but it sounds like the same power chords from "Green" and "Monster." It's all very cliche.

And what about this:

"It's R.E.M.'s long-promised return to rock"

When did they promise this? Was this in a fanclub newsletter? "In addition to the R.E.M. pin, quarterly fanzine and fan club shirt, we promise to return to rock for you guys!"

[Tony Sachs]

It's kind of an R.E.M. cliche that every time they start recording an album, the band members say something to the effect of "This is going to be a loud guitar record." The first time I remember them saying it was before they started recording "Automatic For The People."

I thought "Around The Sun" was better than "Reveal," which as far as I'm concerned was their low point. And certainly every album of theirs has its moments. But I do think that, musically speaking, they'd started to sound a bit ... constipated? "Accelerate" is the good, long crap they've needed to take since Bill Berry quit the band. (OK, bad metaphor, I know.) Now that they've, um, flushed out their systems (I promise, I'll stop!), I can't wait to hear what they do next.

[strifeknot]

Radiohead is awful, Thom Yorke is a terrible songwriter. Hipster poseurs. There are at least a thousand bands that are better.