R.E.M. vs. the Replacements

The Replacements mean more to me as a fan, and always have. But to play fair, R.E.M. meant more to me on a professional level back when I made records for a living. Meaning I took more of an influence in what they did and how they approached it from R.E.M. than The Replacements. Both production wise and career path. For that I'll always owe them a debt of gratitude. But man, I love me some Replacements rock.

 

Way too sappy for me. Hell, "Unsatisfied" alone is able to justify my decision on this poll. I hust don't like happy music.

 

The reason I love REM is for their ability to conjure up deep emotions with very little. "Perfect Circle", "Fall On Me", "Feeling Gravity's Pull", stuff like that. Then there's the moodiness of "Country Feedback" and Automatic For The People. When I hear "Shiny Happy People" it makes me wonder if I should get tested for diabetes. Super sugary sweet bright happy pop does not meld with me - especially since the main draw of that album for me is the incredible encompassing emotion of "Country Feedback". I don't hate it because of its popularity (which I'm completely bemused by) but because of its inability to conjure up any emotion besides a grimace. Different strokes for different folks but this song just makes me gag. Too sweet, too syrupy, too over-the-top.

 

Now we're talkin'...

 

I have to call this one a draw.

 

You need to try more Mats.

 

The Replacements had a lot of "attitude" on stage, and it was like anything could happen. I know this, and I've only seen them twice--once in '91 or '92, and then on this last reunion tour. I mean, on the last tour, the poetry tent? That was funny.

I agree that R.E.M. had a much more professional, even respectful, approach to things, all the way to the end in not milking the fans for a "farewell" tour.

 

REM.. lost me after "losing my religion"..

 

The first Chris Mars album is wonderful. Any Matts fan sho own this.

And Tommy's Bash and Pop CD is killer. Much better then you may expect.

If you looking for a bit more from the Replacements, Grab these gems.

Typos! On on my cell!

 

R.E.M. were a lot more consistent and thus 'achieved' more.

But the highs that the Replacements reached were higher. And the lows much lower! Much more erratic on every level, yet they were actually the more passionate band. They lost a lot when Bob got kicked out, however.

Ultimately, tho, different styles of music.

I voted Mats.

 

Ah so they were your religion.

 

I agree somewhat...I don't think Bob would have done well with the way Paul's writing was going.

 

Yeah but we're also leaving out Sorry Ma Forgot to Take Out the Trash which, if people would only listen to it, would be widely recognized as one of the great punk rock records of all time. For me, a top-tier record at the level of the big three.

And we're leaving out All Shook Down, which is a bummer of a masterpiece.

 

Absolutely agree.
Sorry Ma was a little too late and All Shook Down was a little too soon (and disregarded by most hardcore Replacements fans like the album before it). Both classics.

 

The Replacements were ten years ahead of their time.

They basically invented what later became known as 'Grunge', lock, stock and barrel.

 

Beatles vs. Stones for the new middle-aged.

Replacements, but I love them both.

 

Both produced some great work. I wouldn't replace any of REM's first eight albums (not counting their EP). Monster was where things went wrong. Horribly wrong. Before that they were ahead of the trends, setting the pace or at least in step with their peers. To me Monster was one where they were a step behind, over confident, etc.

On a good night live they good be a very good band. On a good night live the Mats could be a great band. Say what you will about how sloppy drug they could be in the early days but they were THE band to beat live of the two night for night. I would also disagree that their songwriting was
inconsistent--The Mats made five albums in a row that were peerless and perfect.

It doesn't help that REM were in a different place in their career by the time the Mats finally broke through. They never reached the mass audience that REM did in a large scale and, perhaps, that was for the good--while it may have contributed to the disintegration of the band, it also kept their hungry. When REM lost a Bill Berry they lose a unique composing and playing element in the band. Some would argue that the same happened with theMats but I would disagree--they were certainly different but the core remained in tact.

The albums, with the exception of one, that REM made after Bill left are inconsistent an, while they didn't Hur their legacy, they didn't enhance it demonstrating only that, like The Who, they could go on and not sully their name too much.

Both are great bands and I love both but I have no interest in REM after Monster for the most part while even the worst Mats album still kept my interest.

 

This sounds like Beatle talk

On the contrary, they do. They may have imploded more quickly (well REM just kind of fell apart) but the Mats were one of the few American bands of that time that did deserve to be mentioned within the same breath. Paul 's songwriting touched on humanity in much the same way as Ray Davies of The kinks.

 

It's the, "We Built This City" of the alternative rock crowd.

There really wasn't any good reason for REM to hook up with the B-52s, except as a crass attempt for radio play (which did work).

 

I agree. That song gets a bad rap.

The B-52s were their hometown pals from Athens. Why would they not hook up?

 

Apparently, REM sold 85 million albums. Does anyone know what The Replacements sold? Obviously nowhere near that. I voted for the Replacements.

 

Because their musical styles, attitudes, humor, image, and output up to that time were completely different from each other. It came across as just as opportunist a move as opening up with the half-ass rap track on Out Of Time. Then the next thing you know, Kate Pierson is doing duets with Iggy Pop.

It's not a bad song but it has become too much of a focal point---the hate towards, the defense of, that it's not much fun to listen to for me.

 

R.E.M. are simply excellent craftsmen to me. I like their music, I own all of their albums and many singles, comps, etc. But like the Beatles or Dean Martin, they don't do anything for me on a gut level. The Replacements? They're your drinking buddies, your partners in crime, your f***up best friend that you discuss life with at 2AM. I feel the songs, I don't just admire them as objects. Just like the Stones will always occupy a higher place than the Beatles to me, I'll always take the 'Mats above R.E.M.

 

To me, it is just a simple as R.E.M. bringing in a good friend for a guest vocal. I do not think that it was a calculated move beyond that in any way.