Why wasn't REM bigger?

I wish they would reunite. Can't say much more. Talk to the drummer.

 

They released Monster after Automatic for the People? Commercial suicide IMO. It has remained the king of thrift store CD bins for decades. I guess record buying people gave up on them after Monster. For being an indie band breaking MTV & mainstream I think they did pretty darn good. They do have radio staples.

 

"Why weren't they bigger?"

They were huge. In the top 5 in the world for a while alongside U2, Nirvana, GNR and Metallica. That's big enough.

 

I checked: the OP last posted three years ago.

So the OP ain't here to get chastised for the inaccurate notion of the thread anymore!

 

I think they still enjoy making music. They don’t need the money.

 

They got pretty huge for a band whose lyrics were often indecipherable.

 

From my perspective, they were hugely successful in the mid-80's. I was in college, and they were easily the biggest band in Northern California - you'd hear Murmur playing in every dorm room! I was a college radio DJ at KSMC back then, and had a Sunday night slot. R.E.M. was the most requested band - by far - at that time.

But you're also right - Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and the whole grunge wave swept in, and absolutely dominated the airwaves in the early 90's.

R.E.M. carved out their own unique corner of alternative rock. But they shifted in a new direction with "Out Of Time" in 1991. That's when I began to lose interest - and a bit unfairly so, because it's still great music. "Me In Honey" and others are still favorites to play on lost highways. But I loved the more abstract, slightly dark and intricately woven sound of their earlier albums.

Out Of Time was a huge commercial success, but I think that shift in style in the early 90's may have lost them a big chunk of their original audience. Perhaps that's why you felt that way, because that was my experience. I still loved the old albums, but turned my attention to Seattle.

 

They were absolutely huge.. band of the year.. multiple song of the year candidates.. grammys... successful touring band with a string of recognizable singles.. part of the pop zeitgeist when rock and roll was sliding into niche recognition. But why didn't they KEEP topping the charts... they didn't really want to after "Losing My Religion" "Shiny Happy People" "Everybody Hurts" so they did "E-Bow the Letter" and tried to re-obscure themselves back to being an album band. It was voluntary on their part. They could have engaged in popcraft to this very day if they wanted to.. but life in that band wasn't easy and they came to an agreed end. No reason why Michael Stipe couldn't release a top 10 tomorrow with something he came up with on a long flight with a MacBook by his side.. but he doesn't want to become "part of the machinery" again and he doesn't need the money!

 

Even if they loved the money... who needs the hassle.. the game... time has moved on.. some can be 60+ rock and roll elders..... others can not...

 

R.E.M. released two albums that were huge. Out of Time and Automatic For the People sold 18 million copies each and had multiple hits that were played to death throughout the decade. Maybe you weren't around then, but those albums were *massive* and absolutely on the same level as Nirvana, Pearl Jam and U2.

 

Maybe most people call Raiders of the Lost Arc "Raiders" but nobody calls In Utero "Utero."

 

This tread always tickles me when it becomes active again. One of the most popular/successful/respected bands in the last 50 years. I'm not sure how much bigger they could have gotten? Come on this is silly!

 

I was watching “The Bear,” a great new show on Hulu and was delighted when they used an R.E.M. song in an episode. Instead of picking one of the more obvious choices they used “Oh My Heart” from Collapse Into Now, a song I really love .

 

I found their music annoying for some reason. Just my opinion, of course.

 

They kept changing their sound. I got off the REM bus after Monster. Not a bad album and had a few tracks I liked, but I felt like they jumped on the grunge bandwagon with that one.

I saw them on the Monster tour and was disappointed that they played way too many new songs, or songs that had not yet been released (maybe until their next album?). I lost interest after that.

 

They were significantly more popular outside of the US in the last third of their career, though. They had number one hits and sold out huge shows in Europe and Japan when it seemed like they were losing mainstream steam in the states

 

Reveal: 300k in the UK, 400k in the US. The UK had a population of 60 million in 2001. The US had 280 million people.

Around the Sun: platinum in the uk, no US certifications.

Imitation of Life: #6 (uk), 3 (italy), 5 (canada), 83 (usa)

The Great Beyond: 3 (uk), 3 (italy), 16 (canada), did not chart (usa)

Bad Day: 8 (uk), 9 (italy), 17 (canada), 20 (europe), did not chart (usa)

Leaving New York: 4 (Europe), 16 (germany), 19 (canada), 2 (italy), 5 (uk), did not chart (usa)

Wanderlust was their last of 31 (!) top 40 singles in the UK. They only had 9 top 40 hits in the US, and only 22 songs made the Billboard top 100.

Around the Sun hit #1 in 8 countries and was top 5 throughout Europe, but it only made it to 13 in the US, where it wasn't even certified gold. It went gold in 6 countries, platinum in 2 (including Europe), and double platinum in Italy. Clearly Europeans were undergoing a spell of madness at this point but regardless, R.E.M.'s steep decline in popularity was an American phenomenon. They stayed very popular in the ROW.

 

Dude, I knew about REM in 1982. Had friends who got into them at the very start.

I saw them in 1983.

I suspect I already said all this in this thread.

So I was "around then" and well aware of how REM's career worked.

Like I said: slow and steady. They didn't burst onto the scene with a big blast of success - it took them years to become pop stars.

And no, none of their albums sold as well as the biggest records from Nirvana, PJ and U2.

Not even close.

 

I didn't feel like typing "In Utero" every time I referred to the album. Get over it.

 

REM could've been somewhat bigger.

As noted, they never had one mega-album like "Nevermind" or "Joshua Tree" or "Ten". They had 3 albums that sold 4 million in the US but nothing that ascended to the level of those massive hits.

And they also were never big enough to play stadiums on their own.

U2 did. Pearl Jam didn't in their heyday - but they could've circa 1994 or so, and they do now in select markets.

I don't think Nirvana ever made it to stadium level, but it's possible that if they'd kept going, they might've.

So REM did really, really well, but they weren't in the U2/Springsteen/Stones category of HUGE!!! bands...

 

They were big enough! That’s not the kind of band I want to see in a large arena…
Saw them at the Paramount Theater, Seattle 1983 or 84 ish

 

I only liked 2 of their albums...

 

It's not that they needed to be bigger, they were big. It's just they seem to be forgotten about after the mid-90s or so.

One thing I remembered, Losing My Religion was a big part of Beverly Hills 90210. I was in my early teens then and that show was huge.

 

still have a thing for so.goth Fables..cut in LON methinks. that def. set the mood..feeling gravity's pull..kohoutek
saw them '85,'86,'89. time/newsweek/rs covers - rem & (esp.) u2 were huge bitd.

london cawing.

howard finster.

 

The Joshua Tree sold 25 million globally. Automatic and OOT sold 18. Those albums are in the same league. Overall U2 are much bigger though.

Ten has sold 15 million copies. R.E.M. have two albums that sold 18 million. So yeah I'd say that R.E.M. were in the same league.