Talk:R.E.M./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Song Titles

OK, we all agree that "Feeling Gravitys Pull" has no apostrophe (and, of course, the album Lifes Rich Pageant. But what about "Cant Get There From Here"/"Can't Get There From Here" and "Pop Song 89"/"Pop Song '89".

I just made the page for Pop Song 89 and created Pop Song '89 to redirect to the previous. Which way should it be? I've usually seen it without the apostrophe, but the discography page has it with the apostrophe.

And the more confusing one is "Cant Get...." as that one appears with the apostrophe in the liner notes on Eponymous. How does it appear on the single? I would like your input please! Bsd987 02:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it is to look at the albums themselves. With that said, "Pop Song 89" on Green lacks the apostrophe, as does "Cant" on both Eponymous and Fables.... --badlydrawnjeff 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that "Pop Song 89" was a generic reference to being the 89th of a series (89th recording, 89th released track or something like that) pending a final title which never arrived, rather than a reference to a year. After all, "Green" came out in 1988, so if it is "Pop Song '89" then the album was a year too early. The book "It Crawled From The South" mentions this song as having a generic title. This results in a nice symmetry to the album with the last track where Peter plays the drums having no title at all. I read about Lifes Rich Pageant in the same book (p.103) that Michael simply did not bother to use the apostrophe key. I can only assume that "Cant Get There From Here" suffered from the same fate due to Michael being responsible for the titles on the sleeve, and someone else doing the sleeve notes on Eponymous. There has in the past been speculation around Michael possibly being dyslexic. Perhaps he was simply being mischevious and trying to start debate among fans around the significance of his every action.Johnnywoo 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On a similar theme, I was wondering what other people's opinions are regarding putting commas inside versus outside the quotation marks denoting a song title. In the article there seems to be a tendency to put them inside. In this manner, when the title is Wikified, it looks like this: ... the Top 40 hit singles "Man on the Moon," "Drive," ... Obviously this looks inferior and would lead you to place the comma outside the quotation marks, but I think this should be done with no-wiki titles too. Thoughts? - Dudesleeper 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an American-vs.-British journalistic style variation (per the Chicago Manual of Style folks: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Quotations/Quotations18.html): commas inside are the American way. I say either is fine, just be consistent throughout the article. 216.132.59.162 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style's requires the use of "logical quoting", which means that punctuation is only included inside the quotation marks if the punctuation is part of the quotation or title. Translated: commas should always go outside a song title's quotes. -- ChrisB 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the next sentence of the Manual of Style, you come to this: "However, insisting on changing to this usage, especially in articles written in American English, is deprecated; there are better and less divisive uses of time." R.E.M. is an American band; follow American punctuation rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charolastra charolo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

World Tours

"R.E.M.'s Around the Sun World Tour was its first global jaunt since the ill-fated Monster Tour in 1995" - I seem to remember world tours in 1999 in support of Up and 2003 in support of the Greatest Hits. I think this line could do with coming out. 82.38.206.208 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this may have been removed from the article but it must be said that neither the Up, nor Greatest Hits tours were 'world' tours. Up, as far as I can remember - someone is free to correct me - was just a few months of shows in NA and Europe, so too was the Greatest Hits tour. They therefore can't count as a world tour if they only include two of the world's continents, even if they are the largest markets. What about Australia and New Zealand? Japan? South Africa and so on..

Formation

Hi guys, I just edited the "formation" to reflect what I read in a November 15, 1990 Rolling Stone article by David Fricke entitled "Peter Buck Q & A" (also available in the book "R.E.M.: the Rolling Stone files). Here is a paragraph from that interview:

"It was in late January of that year...(1980)..., in the small, swinging college town of Athens, Georgia, that guitarist Peter Buck, singer Michael Stipe, bassist Mike Mills and drummer Bill Berry rehearsed together for the first time. The following April 5th, they made their concert debut--without a name--at a free beer blast in the old, converted Episcopalian church where Stipe and Buck lived."

This clashes a little with what is currently on the Wikipedia page (it currently says that the band was called Twisted Kites).

Anyway, I was wondering if someone could please edit the article in light of my new information (include the info about the April 5th gig date, and that the band then had no name). I would do it, but am unsure about how to properly cite my (non-web page) source. --Stuart mcmillen 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not good

No offense intended to whoever wrote this, but this article is embarrassingly bad.

For starters, I understand one editor's above opinion that the article should be all-inclusive, but the inclusion of so much detail about each individual album violates Wikipedia guidelines that content not directly relevant to the subject be sent to other articles. The details about each album should be featured on that album's page, not here.

And I might not have such an issue with it were the content on this page about each album so ridiculous. Seriously, it reads like a college newspaper album review, where the author attempts to describe the album in flowery detail and explain why it means so much to him/her. (And I can't help but notice how many times it's mentioned that Buck plays arpeggiated chords and Stipe's lyrics are unintelligable.)

Lines like "The album is stylistically unified; the songs blend together..." is horribly POV. That's a review, not a fact. "Mills' bass guitar carries much of the melody, and Stipe's lyrics are often indecipherable, used to create a mood instead of a narrative." Meh? Is this a press bio?

These articles are intended to be encyclopediac in nature. We should be focusing on the band and their experiences, not trying to explain their music in words. AllMusic already exists, we don't need to repeat it here.

If you want to see what I mean, have a read through Nirvana (band). It's a Featured Article, largely because it reflects Wiki's intentions.

I did a modest rewrite of some of the early parts of the article, but I have reservations about going miles through such a developed article without more input. I'll keep going if there are no significant objections. -- ChrisB 10:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote those lines a long, long time ago. I agree they are sappy and am shocked they survived this long. That said, do you really wish to point to the Nirvana article as an example of good writing? I think that article is terrible. Look at the section on Nevermind. In case you didn't notice, it is an album. God forbid the article would have anything to do with the music on the album. Instead, you relate what happened on tour. Here's an example, "At one point in the show, Cobain related to the crowd the recent birth of his daughter, and succeeded in having the crowd chant "We love you, Courtney!" in unison." Here are some more choice words that you wrote, "As Cobain trashed their equipment, Grohl ran to the mic and began yelling "Hi, Axl!" repeatedly, referring to Guns N' Roses singer Axl Rose, with whom the band and Courtney had had a bizarre encounter prior to the show." I'm sorry but are you are writer for People magazine? Or are you one of those music reporters who doesn't actually play a musical instrument so instead focuses on band personalities? Do you think the band-on-tour stories are actually 'encyclopedic'? Is describing an encounter with Axl Rose as 'bizarre' really NPOV? I agree that the writing about REM's music could be better, but shouldn't these articles on bands at least attempt to describe the music the band plays? Lord Kelvin 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wiki selected that article as a featured article for its content. It had to be nominated, go through a vetting process, then a vote, where it was selected. I had nothing to do with it, other than working on the article as an editor. If, during the review process, it was decided that content was unacceptable, it would have been removed in an edit during the vetting process.

The point: these articles are supposed to focus on the BAND. They're supposed to focus on the things that the band did during their career. Important shows, career highlights, things that people remember. The Reading show was one of the largest and most important shows of Nirvana's career - the Courtney moment is there simply because it ties into the beginning of the paragraph. The MTV performance was a distinctive moment in their career in that THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WATCHED IT LIVE ON TV, and was especially notable given the band's refusal to tour the US that summer. For a significant percentage of their fanbase, that MTV performance was the first chance they had to see the band play live. (And if "bizarre" is unclear, the description of the event is included at the bottom in the references section.)

The Nevermind banner head is there to mark the time period, not to serve as a wordy description of the music on the album. Those elements should be included in the article for Nevermind, which is precisely what the guidelines encourage. The basics that are there are more than adequate: Nevermind is an indie rock album with glossy production, In Utero is a more experimental album with raw production. There's no reason at all to come up with some comparison like: "Nevermind had the raw sounds of Led Zeppelin crossed with the edginess of the Sex Pistols" or some similar pap. The band listened to a few specific bands, and subsequently made an album. It's not for us to decide who or what the finished product sounded like. It's not so important that they sound like x or y band; the point of the article should be that they sound like R.E.M.

The real problem: Wiki articles are not supposed to include what's referred to as "original research". Basically, if a sourced article didn't make the claim, we can't include it. Example: this article is the first time I've ever heard early R.E.M. compared to the Who. Regardless of my opinion of the validity of such a claim, if someone else didn't make the claim in a citable article, we can't include it here. (Read through the original research link above and see what I mean.)

Sure, R.E.M.'s studio work is important in their career, but to waste 90% of the content re-hashing who or what influenced the style of what album ignores all of the other important moments. (And there are a TON of them missing here.) I'm sure any moderate fan reading this article could think of half a dozen off the top of their heads. (Examples: the end of the Green tour and Tourfilm, the success of the "Losing My Religion" video, their MTV Unplugged appearances, their reunions with Bill, etc, etc, etc.)

Regardless, I have a MAJOR problem with many of the lyrical interpretations contained in this article. You know, I've performed "Driver 8" on numerous occasions, and I never took from that song that it was about "the scenery surrounding railroad tracks". People take a lot of meanings from songs - choosing one as the "official" definition is unacceptable. Elements like song interpretations should not be included unless a primary source citing the band is available.

If you don't like the Nirvana article, have a spin through a few other Featured Articles: Sex Pistols and Simon and Garfunkel, for example. I think they describe the model pretty clearly.-- ChrisB 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided it was time to browse through the chronology of R.E.M. and its influences I started to write in the late '90s but deserted somewhat in recent years. Hopefully I can fill in some holes, but of course the problem is that the article is already very long. It may need to be increase in length before it can be edited down, however.

For posterity, here were my original aims for the book:

While I couldn’t have imagined that I would progress to the stage that I currently am with my book, there are still many things that I’d like to add. Already in place are the dates and setlists of every known R.E.M. performance, as well as various side projects that they have pursued - either solo or as a group - with other artists. Additionally, I have included important events such as the release of an album and its offspring singles, every birthday of each band member from their first breaths, major world events (which helps bring the said events into focus), as well as milestone performances by other artists.

I have just finished reading about the growth of the CBGB club in New York (as told in the current Q), from its beginning in December 1973 to recent shows there, such as The Strokes’ debut in 1999. I hadn’t realised how much of an influence it had had on, firstly, the new wave (Television, Talking Heads, and The Ramones) and then punk, which kicked in through the Dead Boys in 1976.

My immediate aims are to trawl through various R.E.M.-related publications, including Q's excellent R.E.M. special edition from 2001 and my video collection (which includes both official and unofficial recordings) of the band to see what I can further add. One area I’m not entirely sure I should progress with is to cross-reference dates to photos available in two main books: R.E.M. Inside Out (Craig Rosen, 1997) and Adventures in Hi-Fi (Rob Jovanovic and Tim Abbott, 2001). This would allow the reader to see what the band’s forever-changing look was at any given point in time.

I’m looking forward to the point where I can read through the pages from 1956 to the end (whenever that may be) and amend as necessary before hopefully sharing it with those interested. Dudesleeper 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Song samples

I think it goes without saying there should be more samples of R.E.M. songs than "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" Certainly some better-known hits ("Losing My Religion", "Everybody Hurts") and definitely material from their IRS days should be posted in order to fully convey R.E.M's style, which "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" shouldn't and does not stand as a standard sort of song that they do. There's a clip of "Radio Free Europe" on the Music from Athens, Georgia page, and that should definitely be here, too. WesleyDodds 13:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

agree. can I especially suggest adding "Fall on Me" and "Nightswimming," and maybe something like "Carnival of Sorts (Box Cars)" or "Radio Free Europe." I think that would show a range.

Around the Sun

Is it really true to say that Around the Sun received the most mildest of critical praise out of their albums so far. I know a few sections of the music press in the UK were quite disappointed with it (as Reveal received very good reviews over here in the big magazines), but overall globally, would you say that it received poorer reviews than Up for example? Finally, I've noticed that this article uses spellings from US and CE English. Eg. Favored early on in the article and then "rumoured" late on. Could someone decide on which one should be used (probably US as it concerns a US band) and then can me keep it consistent please? Thanks hedpeguyuk 09:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

R.E.M. (band) or R.E.M.?

Can anyone explain why the article is at R.E.M. (band)? Rapid Eye Movement should be linked from REM, Roentgen equivalent man should be rem, everything else should be REM (disambiguation). The museum doesn't even refer to itself as REM, according to their website. It seems like the move was done in 2002, without much of an explanation. Time to revisit? ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, "rem" is not a valid name for a page, as the first letter will automatically be capitalized. However, I do believe that the band page should be at "R.E.M." considering that mage exists to redirect to the "REM" disambiguous page. Bsd987 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Berry's contributions to the band

It should be noted that Berry's contributions to the band were fare less confined only to drumming. Berry regularly contributed on band's material, playing bass, acoustic guitar, rhythm guitar, back vocals, keyboards and piano.

And he did so on Hi-Fi as well.

If this is going to be added, it needs to be sourced and rewritten (and copyedited). It's adding the implication that Berry's lack of contribution suggested that he was about to quit the band, which is an unsourced assertion.

Furthermore, there are other (better) explanations for why he didn't perform as many other instruments. Hi-Fi was unique as far as how it was recorded - most of it was recorded live on tour during shows and soundchecks. The band used most of the original tracks and spared adding a significant amount of layering in the studio. However, Berry did provide vocals, keyboards, acoustic guitar, and bass on several Hi-Fi tracks, so it's not like he held off entirely. -- ChrisB 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the POV violation the way I read it, but it doesn't make sense and definitely should be rewritten so as to make sense. I think the author was just stating the things Berry did, not that he should have done more, etc.. But it doesn't make sense anyway.... Bsd987 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem was where it was located: [1]. Claiming it as a part of his departure is unsourced. We don't know why Berry mainly focused on drums, percussion, and vocals on Hi-Fi. It may have been the recording process, it may have been an artistic decision - we don't know, and he's never said. Lacking that, it also seems kinda non-notable. -- ChrisB 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

R.E.M. IRS Comp

I think it is slated for September. --Fantailfan 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First off (not to you, but to everyone), in no way is it released by the band, like previously stated. I believe it is EMI that holds the IRS catalogue and they chose to release this without the consent of the band, just like the last 3 IRS collections. This is in no way associated with R.E.M. other than it is their music that will be on the album. Bsd987 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, "I think" doesn't cut it for Wikipedia. We need verifiable sources to include this kind of information, and I found three different websites claiming three different release dates. Even still, I'm not sure this is (as yet) a notable release in the band's history. -- ChrisB 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. I was passing along information via the Talk page. I wish the giant corporation that owns Warner would buy R.E.M.'s catalog from the giant corporation that owns the ex-IRS catalog (EMI). --Fantailfan 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can believe it, Warner and EMI have been trying to buy each other for nearly a decade. They actually had agreements at least twice already, but they fell apart before concluding. -- ChrisB 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Man music sounds like "All the Right Friends"

The article text got reverted, but here's one person (the same one?) who agrees with the original point: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7_v043FZ8FMJ:strangeweirdthoughts.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_strangeweirdthoughts_archive.html+A+piece+of+music+from+the+original+NES+Megaman+sounds+extremely+similar+to+%22All+the+Right+Friends%22,+a+song+by+R.E.M.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Perhaps it could be said that "Some people have observed that a piece of music from the original NES Megaman sounds extremely similar to "All the Right Friends", a song by R.E.M." ASpafford 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's less than trivia. Unless there's some actual connection, then it's just a coincidence, and not nearly notable enough for Wikipedia. And "some people have observed" doesn't meet WP:V, not to mention failing WP:AWW. Regardless, the entire comment is unsourced original research. -- ChrisB 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Trivia" means "insignificant or inessential matters; trifles". If information is notable, then it's not trivia. If you want to strictly apply Wikipedia guidelines in this fashion, then all trivia items should be removed. I quite understand your point against original research, which is why I searched for and found a supporting source (however informal it might be). It's not a "reputable source"; but my hope is that additional information/research might be discovered later to adequately support the "trivia" (not mine, by the way) that you reverted. I also agree that my suggested revised language isn't sufficient, and that it would be necessary to say something like "At least [x number] of sources have observed..." with the citations included. Lastly, it should be noted that this article is full of unsourced information; I see only five citations and a huge amount of unverified material presented as fact. If you were to remove everything of this nature, I fear there will be almost no article left. ASpafford 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. Step off the soapbox. Your "observation" about Mega Man is not important because it has nothing to do with the band.

Please read more carefully. It was not my observation. However, since it relates to a song by R.E.M., it's clearly "about the band", your opinion notwithstanding. The only question is whether a valid source can be found to support the trivia in question. My post here is an invitation for such sources to be presented.

By your logic, should we include every instance where an R.E.M. song sounds like another? Oasis' "Morning Glory" sounds a whole hell of a lot like "The One I Love". (There's a mashup of those two songs on the Internet that drives that point home.) And, unlike your comparison, that's two major singles by two major bands. I mean, so what? Who cares? It's a coincidence. Noel Gallagher didn't sit down and crib "The One I Love", nor was he inspired by R.E.M. to write it. There is no connection between the two.

Again, it is not "my" comparision. Please try to be accurate and don't personalize things. As for your views on what is or is not a "coincidence", or whether there is or is not a connection, they're irrelivent. I would also note that the recycling of music or lyrics from one song to another (Sting comes to mind as an excellent example) can be quite informative as to the creative process.

By the way, "At least [x number] of sources have observed..." would be completely unacceptable as a source. Read WP:V.

I said "it would be necessary to say something like 'At least [x number] of sources have observed...' with the citations included" (emphasis added). So long as the source cited is a "verifiable...credible, third-party", then my language would be perfectly acceptable (aside from the word "of", which was a typo that should be removed).

Arguably my greatest pet peeve in working on Wikipedia articles are people who have one random factoid that they want to stuff in an article. They don't care about the rest of the article, they only care about their one factoid. When it gets removed, they throw a fit and complain about the article, the editors, and anything else that stopped them from including their one factoid.

Yet in reading this over, it's clearly you that are having the fit, not me. I found the information cited to be relevant and interesting, and upon seeing your reversion looked for a source, found one that was insufficiently credible, but posted it here in the hopes that other sources might be discovered. You seem to have lost perspective due to your irrational peeve.

Seriously, if you want to contribute as an editor, help us make the article better. Don't hyperfocus on one (completely) unnecessary tidbit. -- ChrisB 03:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The search for knowledge and a depth of understanding are always more challenging than a quick revert. But thank you for your opinions. ASpafford 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained why it was removed, and you responded with melodramatic swill like, "If you were to remove everything of this nature, I fear there will be almost no article left." You know as well as I do that that's not true. The statement you added failed WP:OR - that it was unsourced was only part of the equation.

I was pointing out how part of your rationale for reverting was flawed and biased. And my statement does not fail, as I was not suggesting that original research would be acceptable. Please be accurate when you try to cite Wiki policies.

If, at some point in time, a reputable source publishes the comment in a noteworthy context, you're more than welcome to give it another try. But, for the record, there is no requirement that every citable piece of information be included in an article. Editors are free to remove any content that they deem non-notable. If other editors disagree, a discussion takes place until there is consensus. -- ChrisB 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's indeed fortunate that the caprice of individual editors such as yourself can be overridden when their personal biases blind them. Cheers! ASpafford 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I'm standing in front of the Castle Aggh. -- ChrisB 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed "Wussiest" song trivia

It may be properly referenced, but it is silly (non-notable) and the page is long enough. It is trivial in its most ephemeral sense and does not belong on the page. Fantailfan 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Category:Warner Music Group artists

This is a category? Please. More like advertisement to me. Fantailfan 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good reason to remove it. It's simply a way to categorize them. I consider it useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Though I hope Warners' client catalogue has more talent than what is listed. Dudesleeper 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (obviously). I believe we are not trying to do a snapshot of music today, but more of a timeline of music history. Whether R.E.M. is with Warner Bros. is not relevant to their overall impact. I.R.S. was indie but now the label name belongs to EMI.

I believe my throat hurts. Fantailfan 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to R.E.M. Bootleg Reviews

Does putting this link in this violate any Wikipedia standards? Fantailfan 13:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it does, the relevant standard is at WP:EL, but I'm not sure it really offers anything for the article adding it even if it is allowed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I scratched it, erroneously taking it as advertising. That said, there is only one R.E.M. bootleg review listed. And the author has an affinity for not using the periods in R.E.M.'s name. My two reasons for its deletion. - Dudesleeper 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes subheadings on albums and singles articles

I started to change the Notes headings to that of a lower level so that they would be more closely connected with the track listing, but then I realised there may be notes from the main body of text. I'll go back and correct them later. - Dudesleeper 11:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

Just lodging my opposition to the merge request. Seems unnecessary to have here, but useful enough to keep separate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that there's plenty of stuff on that page that isn't related to R.E.M.; certainly enough that most of it wouldn't fit here at all. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. An interesting article in its own right, but certainly not related enough to justify merger. ---Charles 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Country format

Given that R.E.M. is an American band, shouldn't this article be formatted in U.S. English? For example, shouldn't the periods in that last "U.S." be left in (like we do) rather than removed (like Brits do)? The Wikipedia Manual of Style counsels that "articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."

Just wondering... Charolastra charolo 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A bot came through and changed all the U.K.s to UK, so I followed suit with the U.S.s, not wanting the discrepancy, as I saw it. As you mention, that's wrong in the eyes of Wikipedia, but my life isn't quite boring enough to feel the need to go back and revert it. - Dudesleeper 12:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)