R.E.M. vs Wilco

[Analogman]

How is it that Peter Buck is a better guitar player than Jay Bennett or Nels Cline? I've never looked at R.E.M. as being great musicians. For them, I do believe it's about the song. And when they were good, it was about telling a story in a song.

 

I've read interviews before where Peter calls himself a "passable guitarist". Now those may have been old interviews, I can't recall exactly. He was probably referring to their beginnings, I suppose. But still, I can't think of anything he has done that is exactly mind blowing.

 

For me, R.E.M. was finished when they left the people, places, and things of The South behind. Or, it could be that is just speaks to me.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Analogman

[mpolak21]

How is it that Peter Buck is a better guitar player than Jay Bennett or Nels Cline? I've never looked at R.E.M. as being great musicians. For them, I do believe it's about the song. And when they were good, it was about telling a story in a song.

 

Maybe better was the wrong word to use, as technically Cline, Bennett and even Tweedy are probably better players, but Buck's parts always seem perfect for the song, which I don't always find to be the case for Wilco's guitar's players. The greatest musicians in my mind are the ones that fit their skills around a song, as opposed to fitting the song around their skills. That sounds too much like academic bullshit, though. I think I really just like the sound of Rickenbackers, and that's what Buck uses.

 

--Mike

[Analogman]

That's good point. I suppose I like both of those things you mentioned, depending on what band we are talking about.

 

I don't think I have listened to any R.E.M. for a long time. I may break out Fables of The Reconstruction tomorrow morning.

[jakobnicholas]

R.E.M. has the better guitarist, Buck. Wilco has the better drummer, though Berry contributed a lot to the songwriting.

 

--Mike

 

 

It could be debated on how good of a guitarist Buck is when compared to Cline, Bennett and Tweedy.

 

But Peter Buck's overall talents as a musician....writer, producer AND player, might top all of them. First, his jangly guitar IS the sound of R.E.M...his guitar sound is very distinct. Buck's been part of SO MANY great artist's records. He played on a song on the Replacement's 'Let it Be'. He produced and helped arrange Uncle Tupelo's "March '92" album. He was a big part of the Hindu Love Gods. He's a big part of the Minus 5, Baseball Project, Hitchcock and the Venus 3, and Tuatara. He's co-written MANY great songs outside of R.E.M., including songs for the Minus 5, Marc Eitzel (co-wrote 'West'...a very good record), and a few beautiful Eels songs. He's played on hundredes (thousands?) of others. If a discography of songs associated with Peter Buck was put out, I'd shell out whatever dough to have it.

 

 

As for Bill Berry, I won't be good at articulating why he was so important to R.E.M., but it's very clear that something major has been amiss since his departure. Stipe, Mills and Buck have said as much. Kotche may be a better technical drummer...I have no idea. But I've read many times over the years how Berry was instrumental in fleshing out the songs in studio with Mills and Buck. It seems Berry had a good feel for what would make a song great and unique.

[Sir Stewart]

As for Bill Berry, I won't be good at articulating why he was so important to R.E.M., but it's very clear that something major has been amiss since his departure. Stipe, Mills and Buck have said as much. Kotche may be a better technical drummer...I have no idea. But I've read many times over the years how Berry was instrumental in fleshing out the songs in studio with Mills and Buck. It seems Berry had a good feel for what would make a song great and unique.

Methinks there was a power source in that unibrow.

[SeattleC]

Accelerate kicks ass. Great for the gym,. Horse to Water, LOVE IT.

 

I firmly believe that we'd all me listeing to robots if Peter Buck did not pick up the Rickenback and bring back guitart music in the early 80s.

 

Funny thing is I was just thing the other day that for years, my two favorites were REM and Robyn Hitchcock, and now that's transitioning to Wilco and Andrew Bird. Life changes and goes on.

 

And for the recond, Peter Buck could still get lucky with me. See him lately with Robyn Hitchcock? He is all that.

 

Accelerate is indeed great for the gym...

 

Robyn and Peter are a great combo. I've seen them live as the Venus 3 probably 6 times. I just saw that they are on the schedule at the Crocodile for Oct 10 for another visit to Seattle. I am never thrilled with the coming of fall into winter here. That's a bright spot to appreciate when it's October.

[tangerine]

I think Yankee ranks with the best of R.E.M... Overall R.E.M. hit their peak in the mid to late 80's with document & life rich pagent... Wilco hit their's with Yankee, Summerteeth & ghost.

 

So I would go

 

Life Rich Pagent

Reckoning

Yankee

Mumor

Summerteeth

Document

New Adventures

Ghost

Green

Fables

[tangerine]

on a side note.. loved accelerate.. their best easily since new adventures in hi-fi.

[John Smith]

There is no REM vs Wilco, they exist mutually exclusive of one another.

[rareair]

time after time is my least favorite song..... TIME AFTER TIME IS MY LEAST FAVORITE SONG.

[moxiebean]

time after time is my least favorite song..... TIME AFTER TIME IS MY LEAST FAVORITE SONG.

calm down, Malkmus.

[Shakey]

REMs died after Life Rich's Pageant. Its a silly comparison.

[remphish1]

Shakey..you are entitled to your opinon but I am willing to wager that most of the people who say similar sentiments either have not heard any of there albums after LRP or have not seen them live since.

[Gweedoe]

Its a silly comparison.

 

 

I agree... two totally different bands that where/are doing two totally different genre's of Rock 'n' Roll (if you will). I think that REM also continually sought out commercial success (top 40 airplay)... more than Wilco ever has (not to say that they won't in the future). I think that you saw REM make a concerted effort in the late 80's to try and make a top 40 hit song.... Both with most of the music on the "green album" and then obviously succeeding with Losing my Religion. So I think it is a hard comparison at this point, because Wilco has yet to give up their scruples for a hit record... I think that REM did... I think that REM finally said "ok, we need to make some money at this..." and they released "Out of Time" (you think that album title was a coincidence?? Ha

 

my 2 pennies!

[remphish1]

They already made there money before that point so I am not sure your point makes sense. When they signed on to Warner Brothers they got an $80 Mil 5 album deal.

[cryptique]

REMs died after Life Rich's Pageant. Its a silly comparison.

I support this statement. And I've heard all the albums since LRP and seen them live.

[Synthesizer Patel]

They are both dead to me now. The only difference is that I used to like one of them.

[remphish1]

I support this statement. And I've heard all the albums since LRP and seen them live.

 

If you believe this why did you then give 10 albums after LRP a chance and how come you have seen them since? Why give them the chance if you believe that? Something must have kept you coming back? Just curious

[cryptique]

I kept giving them a chance because they were so good in the beginning that I really didn't want to believe that they could be so bad once they jumped to a major label (and the decline started even before then, on Document). They had a few moments post-Lifes Rich Pageant, but none that I consider to be essential. Not even Automatic For The People.

 

I do this with a number of bands -- remembering their glory days, yearning for something new that's up to those standards, and still eagerly anticipating new releases even after several disappointments. U2 comes to mind.

[remphish1]

I guess I can see what you are saying (Though still not sure what is so bad of REM post 1987?) because I also have not liked the last 3 or so U2 Albums..I could however combine the last 3 U2 albums into 1 great album!

[Moss]

I support this statement. And I've heard all the albums since LRP and seen them live.

 

I change my mind, Chronic town through LRP competes with the best Wilco but that's it. I saw them on the Fables tour and the Monster tour and still stand by this statement. I love Fables, and there are amazing songs on almost every album but the albums (as a whole) after LRP don't compete with Wilco for me.

 

 

"They're marching through Georgia,

we're marching through Georgia,

marching through Georgia

G-G-G-G-Georgia

and there stands REM"

[mpolak21]

"They're marching through Georgia,

we're marching through Georgia,

marching through Georgia

G-G-G-G-Georgia

and there stands REM"

 

Unseen Power of the Picket Fence > Wilco's post-YHF output.

 

--Mike

[Central Scrutinizer]

There's an obvious parallel. Both bands are cursed by the absolute brilliance of their early and mid-period work. Both are fronted by a remarkable songwriter but got big contributions from others. Both lost a critical member and were never the same. Both have released later records that are perceived by many as drastically inferior. Both are still universally acclaimed as terrific live acts, even though their recorded output is uneven.

I'd say one of the key parallels with these two bands is they were guided as "students" of music, particularly music outside of the mainstream, and as such were able to forge an instantly unique sound. There was a self-consciousness of "musician as fan," developing not only the sound but a group "persona," the type of things that geeky fans cling to. Through the "early and mid-period" there was an integrity to explore, develop and challenge. At some point, for whatever reason, both groups have lost that edge, or drive to expand. I think there are efforts, but it has been self conscious; both to try to recreate within the existing framework, or to try to adapt to how music has evolved around them.

 

While many point to Wilco's decline as losing the "tension" or "angst" -- that YHF was a result of the conflicts seen on IATTBYH, rather than that was the environment they happened to create under. I think an artist is impacted by its audience and its success; it affects how they move forward. Others have referred to it as "losing the hunger" or "the edge." I think it's a case of an artist, who finds a creative vein, based on where they're at, the cirumstances under which they dig, through happenstance of dropping spade here rather than there. Eventually, that vein taps out creatively. If you're young enough, hungry enough, or if circumstances warrant, you might strike it rich again elsewhere. But the same happenstance that made the first one so unlikely makes a repeat far more unlikely.

[Central Scrutinizer]

REMs died after Life Rich's Pageant. Its a silly comparison.

Automatic is their best album. By a long shot. Out of Time was a band on top of their craft. Life's Rich Pageant was the band at the pinnacle of their original sound.

 

I guess I can see what you are saying (Though still not sure what is so bad of REM post 1987?) because I also have not liked the last 3 or so U2 Albums..I could however combine the last 3 U2 albums into 1 great album!

As one who believes U2 has always been about form over substance, I can combine the best 3 U2 albums into 1 great album.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'd say one of the key parallels with these two bands is they were guided as "students" of music, particularly music outside of the mainstream, and as such were able to forge an instantly unique sound. There was a self-consciousness of "musician as fan," developing not only the sound but a group "persona," the type of things that geeky fans cling to. Through the "early and mid-period" there was an integrity to explore, develop and challenge. At some point, for whatever reason, both groups have lost that edge, or drive to expand. I think there are efforts, but it has been self conscious; both to try to recreate within the existing framework, or to try to adapt to how music has evolved around them.

 

While many point to Wilco's decline as losing the "tension" or "angst" -- that YHF was a result of the conflicts seen on IATTBYH, rather than that was the environment they happened to create under. I think an artist is impacted by its audience and its success; it affects how they move forward. Others have referred to it as "losing the hunger" or "the edge." I think it's a case of an artist, who finds a creative vein, based on where they're at, the cirumstances under which they dig, through happenstance of dropping spade here rather than there. Eventually, that vein taps out creatively. If you're young enough, hungry enough, or if circumstances warrant, you might strike it rich again elsewhere. But the same happenstance that made the first one so unlikely makes a repeat far more unlikely.

 

I think R.E.M.'s decline is are pretty easily explained: they wore themselves out. Look at their touring schedule from, say, 1981 through 1989. They took 1988 off pretty much in terms of touring (although they recorded Green then), but otherwise toured and recorded non-stop. They released one classic record after another, and played well over 100 dates per year. From 1981 to 1986 they hardly ever took as much as a month off. See: http://www.remtimeline.com/

 

They really were the hardest-working band in the world for a few years there, and by the time their I.R.S. deal ran out, they were exhausted. They took it slow for a few years, put out a few more classic records (Out of Time and Automatic) while hardly playing live at all, then did one more Monster tour and one more classic record (NAIHF), then that was pretty much it. Bill Berry left because he hated touring, and the other guys have pretty much treated R.E.M. as a side project ever since.

 

Stipe spends his time making arty films and being a celebrity, while Mills plays golf or something, so that only Peter Buck is a real full-time musician any more. They used to spend all their time together on the road playing and writing songs, and now they don't. It's hard to blame them, because their early years were absolutely brutal, but their art has certainly suffered. A part-time band will never be as good as a full-time band. They still write decent songs here and there, and they can still bring it in the live setting, but they're not the same band any more by a long stretch.