Continuing my day-long fixation on alt-radio even *I* don't really give a shit about...
Why does R.E.M. even fucking bother without Bill Berry? I'm something of a mild apologist for their late 80s/early to mid 90s stuff, but their post-Berry output isn't anything anyone could stick up for. Come to think of it, they sucked before that though. Say 94/95. I'm a pop whore with a penchancy for sticking up for latter-era work, but I don't have anything nice to say about R.E.M. post Monster. (And I don't like Monster, but it has some moments.)
I did get the remaster of Life's Rich Pageant though, and that's a fanfuckingtastic record. That's sort of why I'm irked all over again about their decade plus of suckage.
I remember way back when REM made the cover of rolling stone the first time (document maybe?) They said they planned on breaking up in the year 2000, if they made it that long. It kinda pisses me off they couldn't keep that promise. Although I really haven't lost any sleep over it. That being said, there are a couple of noteworthy tracks on each of the first three warner albums. Monster was a huge disappointment for me. Before it was released, stipe had described it as a "punk rock" record. And thurston moore was to guest on it. Turns out michael stipe has no idea what punk rock is, peter buck got a new pedal and couldn't figure out how to turn it off, and thurston moore made sure nobody could tell he had anything to do with that record. Also, there is no way to make a timeless record if the lead single is called "star 69".
THAT being said, new adventures in hi-fi is the best album they made since life's rich pageant, and although I haven't listened to it in years, I imagine it holds up pretty well. Nothing i've heard since then (post berry) has even warranted a second visit.
Author
