R.E.M. have broken up

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the reasons for REM splitting (which seem so organic and almost idyllic - so graceful) will be different from the reasons why U2 will eventually split.

I'd be more inclined to think that U2 won't ever officially split, but just fade away until special circumstances dictate that they really are over. Bono might fall into a role or a job that demands the need to temporarily retire, but the possibility of at some stage picking up where they left off will always exist.

In no way this will happen

U2, and specially Bono will make an event out of it, to make a media fest and sell yet more records. :doh:

Then the inevitable promotion interviews, U2 Greatest Hits albums, another remaster of studio albums ...
 
In no way this will happen

U2, and specially Bono will make an event out of it, to make a media fest and sell yet more records. :doh:

Then the inevitable promotion interviews, U2 Greatest Hits albums, another remaster of studio albums ...

Guess you don't think much of Bono or U2. :doh::doh::huh:


When U2 decides to stop making new music, I've got a feeling it's going to be handled much differently than what you have envisioned.
 
^ In terms of bands getting on a bit and fading in terms of musical ingenuity: Pearl Jam is getting on a bit too :(

EDIT - and that song has NOT made my day any better... it just reminds me how much I'll miss the band


Guess you haven't been listening to Pearl Jam in the last few years. They released Backspacer exactly 2 years ago. It's probably their best album since No Code. Sounds like you have been crashing your car too many times and suffered severe head trauma as a result. :doh:
 
No I havent

So?

You said that Pearl Jam were one of those bands that were fading in terms of musical ingenuity. If you were going to make such a statement, one would assume that you can back that statement up by listening to their recent work. I suggest you give it a listen or two. It might provide you with some insight. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
 
You're right, but it's not like PJ is doing anything new, different, or revelatory.

And I disagree that Backspacer is their best since No Code. Even if it was their best album of this current millennium/past decade (and I'd probably argue that Avocado takes that title), it's not better than Yield, and a far cry from the peaks of No Code and Vitalogy.

I guess one could levy the same charge against No Net On The Horizon, but that album has moments of brilliance relative to the band's career that I don't see on Backspacer.
 
Why are we talking about all these other bands in this thread? Does everything have to break into a "U2 fans are threatened by EVERY other successful band on Earth" discussion? This forum is such a broken record, it hurts. What the hell is wrong with U2 fans?
 
You're right, but it's not like PJ is doing anything new, different, or revelatory.

And I disagree that Backspacer is their best since No Code. Even if it was their best album of this current millennium/past decade (and I'd probably argue that Avacado takes that title), it's not better than Yield, and a far cry from the peaks of No Code and Vitalogy.

I guess one could levy the same charge against No Net On The Horizon, but that album has moments of brilliance relative to the band's career that I don't see on Backspacer.

I love Yield and it's definitely a great album. The Avacado album was also great. I think I might perhaps be biased to Backspacer because I played the shit out of it for the first several months after it came out and the songs really hit home with me on a more personal level. I think the album is new and different and revelatory because Eddie discusses certain topics in a way that he hasn't done before. Either way, they've given no indication that they are fading musically.
 
Why are we talking about all these other bands in this thread? Does everything have to break into a "U2 fans are threatened by EVERY other successful band on Earth" discussion? This forum is such a broken record, it hurts. What the hell is wrong with U2 fans?


We're on a Shuttlecock forum. However much some of us still care or don't care about the band, they're the reason we're all here.

So to view things through a Shuttlecock prism at some point isn't exactly off-base. Especially when we're discussing a contemporary of the band.
 
As far as I am concerned, I love Binaural, Riot Act and Avocado (the last one being their best since No Code). It's Backspacer that got me worried a bit about the band. Similar to what happened with Reveal and R.E.M.
 
Why are we talking about all these other bands in this thread? Does everything have to break into a "U2 fans are threatened by EVERY other successful band on Earth" discussion? This forum is such a broken record, it hurts. What the hell is wrong with U2 fans?


Everybody hurts. Sometimes. :wink:



We're talking about them because people are drawing comparisons to them. There is no comparison. Artists like REM and Pearl Jam have done things their own unique way and thankfully so. For many U2 fans, it's a kneejerk reaction to compare anything to U2. Plus, this is like a U2 site and stuff. :wink:
 
We're on a Shuttlecock forum. However much some of us still care or don't care about the band, they're the reason we're all here.

So to view things through a Shuttlecock prism at some point isn't exactly off-base. Especially when we're discussing a contemporary of the band.


Thankfully, I'm not cool enough to know what the fuck a Shuttlecock is.
 
We're on a Shuttlecock forum. However much some of us still care or don't care about the band, they're the reason we're all here.

So to view things through a Shuttlecock prism at some point isn't exactly off-base. Especially when we're discussing a contemporary of the band.

The U2 stuff doesn't bother me (well, right now at least), it is what it is. The bagging on every other band that's been around for a relatively comparable amount of time to U2 does.
 
Backspacer isn't that interesting. Neither is their self titled album. They have to make things more interesting. The Canadian tour they are doing however is kicking ass. Maybe they are not a studio band.

Considering this is the "REM have broken up" thread, maybe we should continue any further Pearl Jam discussion in the current Pearl Jam thread.


But, in a small aside- Pearl Jam have been rocking for 20 years. Maybe they did something right in the studio along the way.
 
It amuses me a little that people, on a U2 forum, are arguing about which 80's bands are past their prime. That must look hilarious to the outside world.
 
I'm sure there are far more hilarious things in here to this so-called outside world.
 
We're on a Shuttlecock forum. However much some of us still care or don't care about the band, they're the reason we're all here.

So to view things through a Shuttlecock prism at some point isn't exactly off-base. Especially when we're discussing a contemporary of the band.

It might not be off-base but it's sure as hell annoying.
 
I think... Michael Stipe's sexuality being revealed (to me it was never any question he was gay, but who cares?) lead to their fall in popularity.
I was thinking about this a while ago, too. Did Stipe's eventual opening up to Queerness affect their popularity? On the surface, it would seem not, but there is a sharp correlation between it and their fall in sales. It tends to happen that way in the United States (see also, George Michael), where a male rocker's being gay suddenly turns away a huge proportion of the fan-base. So, I dunno.
They lacked all things that appealed to the standard music fan. No searing guitar solos or jam sessions, no real sex appeal, and no pandering gimmicks.
Good points all! U2 have that ability to do everything larger than life, no matter how middle-of-the-road their individual tastes and personalities might be (not to mention their incessant need to appeal to young fans). R.E.M. do not have this ability, and, as you say, lack the usual things that appeal to mentally-deficient (i.e., the average top 40) fan.
 
Stipe may not have come out until later, but they were always an artsy band. Out of Time was their biggest seller, and the video for Losing My Religion was shot like an art film.

And then you have Shiny Happy People, which is one of the gayest videos I've ever seen. Certainly didn't hurt sales.
 
I had no idea Stipe was gay. I think it's ridiculous to suggest there's a correlation between that and diminishing sales.

Coming out worked for Bowie.
 
I think it's ridiculous to suggest there's a correlation between that and diminishing sales.
It's not a suggestion, it's a fact.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that's the only reason -- obviously it has a lot to do with the band's losing Bill Berry and the passing of alt-rock in the mainstream -- but I think it is worth discussing and doesn't need to be curtly dismissed.

If there was ever a "gayer" video than George Michael's "Faith", I've never seen it, but it was the #1 single of the year in the US. Yet, after his forced outage, he dropped off the US charts completely while selling more records than ever in Europe and Britain. A lot of the "arty" or slightly queer stuff passes a lot of people by.

(David Bowie is not gay as far as I know, and in any case he was much more popular in Britain than in the USA.)
 
Bill Berry had an inspiring monobrow, that's for sure.

Stumbled across Rage last night where they played oodles of R.E.M. videos, was great until I finally fell asleep. Also reminded me that my R.E.M. collection is largely incomplete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom