Famous Fans Vote 'Day in the Life' Fab Four's Best
Renn
LONDON (Reuters) - "A Day In The Life" is the greatest Beatles' song of
all time, according to the Fab Four's fellow pop stars and leaders of
the music industry.
A survey published on Thursday compiled a greatest Beatles song chart
after polling celebrity fans, including Paul Weller, Radiohead, REM,
Travis, Goldie and Noddy Holder.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" made it to the number two spot, narrowly
beating "I am a Walrus."
"The Beatles supplied the soundtrack for being young in the Sixties and
in ways that no other band has done, they have touched the lives of
successive generations since," said Allan Jones, editor of music
magazine Uncut which carried out the poll.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting that the top three are "John" songs. (Although I find the
story's reference to "I am A Walrus" a little amusing; "a" walrus, as
opposed to "the" walrus, somehow sounds sillier.)
--
re...@cam.com (coded)
To reply by email, change "cam" to "mac"
Pete Best
Not even close.
It's Stairway to Heaven
nowhere man
> Famous Fans Vote 'Day in the Life' Fab Four's Best
>
> LONDON (Reuters) - "A Day In The Life" is the greatest Beatles' song of
> all time, according to the Fab Four's fellow pop stars and leaders of
> the music industry.
>
> A survey published on Thursday compiled a greatest Beatles song chart
> after polling celebrity fans, including Paul Weller, Radiohead, REM,
> Travis, Goldie and Noddy Holder.
>
> "Strawberry Fields Forever" made it to the number two spot, narrowly
> beating "I am a Walrus."
coincidentally enough, those same two songs came top of a survey held
across usenet last year, where 444 folks voted.
Mister Charlie
craftsmanship than you.
"Pete Best" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B16CE92...@hotmail.com...
nowhere man
> apparently not to the people who make the music and are better able to judge
> craftsmanship than you.
and the original poster (Pete Best) will note that Stairway to Heaven wasn't
covered by the Beatles and therefore could not have made the list.
Will
Sixties Gen
even participate in the poll.
btw, I heartily concur with the Number One choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Best <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3B16CE92...@hotmail.com>...
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>I'm surprised that REM, given their past dissing of The Beatles, would
>even participate in the poll.
>
>btw, I heartily concur with the Number One choice.
R.E.M. didn't diss the Beatles. Michael Stipe said *once* in an
interview that he wasn't at all interested in the Beatles' music,
being much more influenced by the Velvet Underground and other groups.
He said Beatles music wasn't important to him.
However, Michael Stipe is not R.E.M. He's only a third of it. Mike
Mills and Peter Buck are Beatles' fans. Peter has even been known to
do the 'Day Tripper' riff in concerts (I've heard it).
R.E.M.'s new album and single are doing pretty good Over Here, for
which I give thanks; 'Up' simply wasn't very good in total, although
there were some good things on it. This new one, judging from what
they've played on Jools Holland and the concert in Cologne that MTV
broadcast, sounds like a return to excellent form. It looks like that
they've taken a hint from Bruce Springsteen and gone back to having
fun on stage instead of mucking about with a lot of scenery.
And they did 'South Central Rain' as the first encore. Excellent.
Lizz 'Still missing Bill Berry, though' Holmans
TheMutant
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mecfht0i47je4f73e...@4ax.com...
Nurktwn
> wrote:
> R.E.M. didn't diss the Beatles. Michael Stipe said *once* in an
> interview that he wasn't at all interested in the Beatles' music,
> being much more influenced by the Velvet Underground and other groups.
> He said Beatles music wasn't important to him.
Did Stipe not once call the Fabs' stuff "elevator music?"
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
He said that was how he perceived it.
He later clarified, saying that it was so pervasive that it just
didn't matter to him. He liked other stuff.
Until they pass laws against liking other stuff, I don't think there's
much of a case against R.E.M. or Michael Stipe.
Lizz 'Don't hate him, hate someone worthwhile: Michael Bolton'
Holmans
Valic9
>
>He said that was how he perceived it.
>
>
I read an article one time where a writer was reacting to Stipe's take on
Beatle music being elevator music. The writer said that if it wasn't for the
Beatles, REM would still be using the stairs.
Sam
nowhere man
Stipe should grow some hair instead of talking through his arse. YMMV
Will
Mister Charlie
"nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3B183F15...@lineone.net...
nowhere man
> maybe he has got a hairy ass.
i reckon he's full of gas
> > > >Did Stipe not once call the Fabs' stuff "elevator music?"
> > >
> > > He said that was how he perceived it.
> > >
> > > He later clarified, saying that it was so pervasive that it just
> > > didn't matter to him. He liked other stuff.
> > >
> > > Until they pass laws against liking other stuff, I don't think there's
> > > much of a case against R.E.M. or Michael Stipe.
> > >
> >
> > Stipe should grow some hair instead of talking through his arse. YMMV
> >
> > Will
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
Bb Eb F Gm7
Distractions, like butterflies are buzzing 'round my head.
Eb F
When I'm alone I think of you
Gm7 Eb
And the things we'd do if we could only be through
F Bb Eb F Gm9 Dm7
With these distractions.
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
Sixties Gen
Better yet...they wouldn't even make it to the first floor.
btw, I didn't mean to start a hate-Stipe thread here, I was merely
surprised that REM would care to rate Beatles songs, given the prior
pronouncements of one of their members. Makes you wonder what song
REM would identify with or pick as their Number One Beatles'
song...maybe "I'm Only Sleeping".
Burp Bacharach
"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4734803e.01060...@posting.google.com...
> val...@cs.com (Valic9) wrote in message
news:<20010601172108...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com>...
> > >>Did Stipe not once call the Fabs' stuff "elevator music?"
> > >
> > >He said that was how he perceived it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I read an article one time where a writer was reacting to Stipe's take
on
> > Beatle music being elevator music. The writer said that if it wasn't for
the
> > Beatles, REM would still be using the stairs.
> >
> > Sam
>
> Better yet...they wouldn't even make it to the first floor.
>
> btw, I didn't mean to start a hate-Stipe thread here,
why not? he sucks.
and after what they did to witchita lineman, they should be shot.....:)
Joseph Almanzo
Maybe not, but it is a good idea. That f**ker is annoying.
Joe
"If you're at a party and Courtney Love has called it a night, you've stayed
too long."
Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist
Ryno
--
Rynosseros: 'orny, ornery critter.
Burp Bacharach
"Ryno" <Ry...@nomail.thanksalot.com> wrote in message
news:2mdhht0nplbibj32v...@4ax.com...
thats actionable !
you said you were going to commit murder!
my wife is preparing subpoeanas!
your ass is grass!
count on it!
oh well....
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
And its my considered opinion that the Rolling Stones should have all
died in a plane crash immediately after the release of 'Sticky
Fingers'.
Now can we quit dissing an great band's entire career for something
one person said one time?
Lizz 'Think of it as a "Bigger than Jesus" moment' Holmans
Burp Bacharach
what "great band"?
we're dissing REM.
nowhere man
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:57:24 +1000, Ryno <Ry...@nomail.thanksalot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Burp Bacharach" <d...@goodie.com> on Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:45:59 +1000,
> >in rec.music.beatles, said:
> >>
> >>"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>> btw, I didn't mean to start a hate-Stipe thread here,
> >>
> >>why not? he sucks.
> >>
> >>and after what they did to witchita lineman, they should be shot.....:)
> >>
> >Perhaps they shoulda been shot after Green. "Orange Crush" rawked.
>
> And its my considered opinion that the Rolling Stones should have all
> died in a plane crash immediately after the release of 'Sticky
> Fingers'.
>
> Now can we quit dissing an great band's entire career for something
> one person said one time?
but REM had Out of Time and Automatic for the People.....in 1991 and 1992
respectively.
Don't get me wrong, we all loved everybody hurts, night swimming, shiny happy
people, etc.......but that was 10 years ago. At the minute these guys would
nearly kill for a decent a tune. Indeed didn't they rejig one of their old hit
tunes, with new words, for another single release there not so long back.
If Stipe would stop posturing at the camera while in that stupid look of his, and
get his finger out of his bum, he might come up with some more listenable
material. Until then, he's merely the front man of a band who had major success
in 1991 and 1992.
Geez, slagging off the Beatles wasn't too smart. When it comes to elavator music,
his band funnily enough would be my top of the pops.
Will
Burp Bacharach
> Lizz Holmans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:57:24 +1000, Ryno <Ry...@nomail.thanksalot.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Burp Bacharach" <d...@goodie.com> on Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:45:59 +1000,
> > >in rec.music.beatles, said:
> > >>
> > >>"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >>> btw, I didn't mean to start a hate-Stipe thread here,
> > >>
> > >>why not? he sucks.
> > >>
> > >>and after what they did to witchita lineman, they should be
shot.....:)
> > >>
> > >Perhaps they shoulda been shot after Green. "Orange Crush" rawked.
> >
> > And its my considered opinion that the Rolling Stones should have all
> > died in a plane crash immediately after the release of 'Sticky
> > Fingers'.
> >
> > Now can we quit dissing an great band's entire career for something
> > one person said one time?
>
> but REM had Out of Time and Automatic for the People.....in 1991 and 1992
> respectively.
>
> Don't get me wrong, we all loved everybody hurts,
soz will ,i fukin HATE that song.
its so whingey and whiney and wet and weak and pissy and moaningly sickly
sweet, it makes me wanna puke.
blech!
> If Stipe would stop posturing at the camera while in that stupid look of
his, and
> get his finger out of his bum,
or his boyfriend's bum at least...:)
nowhere man
> "nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>
> > but REM had Out of Time and Automatic for the People.....in 1991 and 1992
> > respectively.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, we all loved everybody hurts,
>
> soz will ,i fukin HATE that song.
>
> its so whingey and whiney and wet and weak and pissy and moaningly sickly
> sweet, it makes me wanna puke.
>
> blech!
Everybody Hurts still doesn't come close to that Old Brown Shoe demo I have
here somewhere!
> > If Stipe would stop posturing at the camera while in that stupid look of
> his, and get his finger out of his bum,
>
> or his boyfriend's bum at least...:)
the guy's a tube....so full of his own self worth.
Now that the songs have dried up he should go and get himself a job or summat.
Will
Lizz Holmans
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>Don't get me wrong, we all loved everybody hurts, night swimming, shiny happy
>people, etc.......but that was 10 years ago. At the minute these guys would
>nearly kill for a decent a tune. Indeed didn't they rejig one of their old hit
>tunes, with new words, for another single release there not so long back.
Um...not that I can think of. But if they did, they certainly wouldn't
have been the first. Lemme see, how does 'Real Love' go again?
'Reveal', their latest album, is number 1 on the UK charts right now.
As I haven't gotten the correctly shaped tuit to buy it yet, it must
be because someone else has done so.
>
>If Stipe would stop posturing at the camera while in that stupid look of his, and
>get his finger out of his bum, he might come up with some more listenable
>material. Until then, he's merely the front man of a band who had major success
>in 1991 and 1992.
'Monster' sold rather well in 1995--well enough to get them a *huge*
contract with Warner Brothers. 'What's The Frequency, Kenneth?' was a
major hit single off that album in the States. 'New Adventures in
Hi-Fi' and 'Up' sold respectably, if not immensely.
Stipe doesn't write the music. That mostly comes from Mike Mills, who
is the best musician in the group. Stipe contributes most of the
words. All songs are credited to all of them, though, because they
view themselves as a collective.(1)
Losing Bill Berry also made a big difference, but after his near-death
by aneurysm on the 'Monster' tour, I can't blame him for preferring
farming. They also had a very acrimonious split with their manager
just after 'Monster', and that didn't help, either (the manager was at
fault--sexual harassment is a bad thing, and the band wouldn't
tolerate it). With 'Reveal', they seem to be pulling out of that
inevitable slump and making some great music--again.
>
>Geez, slagging off the Beatles wasn't too smart. When it comes to elavator music,
>his band funnily enough would be my top of the pops.
Slagging off Christianity wasn't a terribly bright move, either.
Neither was the 'Magical Mystery Tour' film fiasco. Neither was John's
posing nude on the 'Two Virgins' album cover.
I've heard a lot of Beatles' tunes muzacked, Will--a lot more often
than I've heard any R.E.M. Doesn't make me dislike the Beatles.
I don't care if you like R.E.M. or not. I just don't think one has to
make a choice between liking the Beatles and liking R.E.M., which is
what I'm feeling here.
Lizz 'You want *bad* music, go with 'Feelings' Holmans
(1) with the exception of one song on 'Up', which shared a credit with
Leonard Cohen.
nowhere man
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 12:50:18 +0100, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Don't get me wrong, we all loved everybody hurts, night swimming, shiny happy
> >people, etc.......but that was 10 years ago. At the minute these guys would
> >nearly kill for a decent a tune. Indeed didn't they rejig one of their old hit
> >tunes, with new words, for another single release there not so long back.
>
> Um...not that I can think of. But if they did, they certainly wouldn't
> have been the first. Lemme see, how does 'Real Love' go again?
well Lizz, since John was dead we sort of have a finite number of possible
demos/out-takes to work with.
> 'Reveal', their latest album, is number 1 on the UK charts right now.
> As I haven't gotten the correctly shaped tuit to buy it yet, it must
> be because someone else has done so.
S Club 7 and hundreds of other acts are having number ones here these times. I reckon
they shoudl have twice weekly charts...maybe even daily ones ;3)
> >If Stipe would stop posturing at the camera while in that stupid look of his, and
> >get his finger out of his bum, he might come up with some more listenable
> >material. Until then, he's merely the front man of a band who had major success
> >in 1991 and 1992.
>
> 'Monster' sold rather well in 1995--well enough to get them a *huge*
> contract with Warner Brothers. 'What's The Frequency, Kenneth?' was a
> major hit single off that album in the States. 'New Adventures in
> Hi-Fi' and 'Up' sold respectably, if not immensely.
those two albums burnt a lot of record buyers......the records were shite and the
1991/92 bubble had burst.
> Stipe doesn't write the music. That mostly comes from Mike Mills, who
> is the best musician in the group. Stipe contributes most of the
> words. All songs are credited to all of them, though, because they
> view themselves as a collective.(1)
>
> Losing Bill Berry also made a big difference, but after his near-death
> by aneurysm on the 'Monster' tour, I can't blame him for preferring
> farming. They also had a very acrimonious split with their manager
> just after 'Monster', and that didn't help, either (the manager was at
> fault--sexual harassment is a bad thing, and the band wouldn't
> tolerate it). With 'Reveal', they seem to be pulling out of that
> inevitable slump and making some great music--again.
I'll believe it when I hear it Lizz.
I wasn't fully aware of the details behind their problems.
> >Geez, slagging off the Beatles wasn't too smart. When it comes to elavator music,
> >his band funnily enough would be my top of the pops.
>
> Slagging off Christianity wasn't a terribly bright move, either.
no poor journalism and reporting was the problem there. John was bright enough....it
was just the media giving southern extremists the opportunity to start bonfires of hate
and self righteousness.
Those good folks had been buying the wood and matches for many a month beforehand.
> Neither was the 'Magical Mystery Tour' film fiasco. Neither was John's
> posing nude on the 'Two Virgins' album cover.
>
> I've heard a lot of Beatles' tunes muzacked, Will--a lot more often
> than I've heard any R.E.M. Doesn't make me dislike the Beatles.
>
> I don't care if you like R.E.M. or not. I just don't think one has to
> make a choice between liking the Beatles and liking R.E.M., which is
> what I'm feeling here.
I like Out of Time and Automatic for the People Lizz...............but REM aren't in
the same league as the Beatles or even for that matter The Everly Brothers.
Stipe should put a pin in his big bloody head and get real. If he reckons the Beatles
music is only fit for elevators, then farmers may start playing REM albums in pig stys.
Will
Lizz Holmans
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>well Lizz, since John was dead we sort of have a finite number of possible
>demos/out-takes to work with.
But they didn't *have* to do it, did they? Nobody put a gun to their
collective head and said 'Rework a song John didn't finish and release
it', did they? They did so because they wanted to make some music and
some money. Not bad motives--I suspect most musicians share those
motivations. So why are you condemning R.E.M. for something they may
not have even done?
>
>S Club 7 and hundreds of other acts are having number ones here these times. I reckon
>they shoudl have twice weekly charts...maybe even daily ones ;3)
'Reveal' has gotten some pretty good reviews, too, and from adult
reviewers. Comparing them to a band like S Club 7 is rather like
comparing the Beatles to Westlife.
>
>those two albums burnt a lot of record buyers......the records were shite and the
>1991/92 bubble had burst.
They may have been shite to you, but they weren't shite to everybody.
There is some good stuff on those albums, even though I was
disappointed in a lot of it. But guess what? I don't think every
Beatles song was divinely inspired, either.
>
>
>>
>> Losing Bill Berry also made a big difference, but after his near-death
>> by aneurysm on the 'Monster' tour, I can't blame him for preferring
>> farming. They also had a very acrimonious split with their manager
>> just after 'Monster', and that didn't help, either (the manager was at
>> fault--sexual harassment is a bad thing, and the band wouldn't
>> tolerate it). With 'Reveal', they seem to be pulling out of that
>> inevitable slump and making some great music--again.
>
>I'll believe it when I hear it Lizz.
So you're dissing something you haven't even *heard*?
Jesus, Will, don't you think that's a little unfair?
>
>I wasn't fully aware of the details behind their problems.
>
>>
>> Slagging off Christianity wasn't a terribly bright move, either.
>
>no poor journalism and reporting was the problem there. John was bright enough....it
>was just the media giving southern extremists the opportunity to start bonfires of hate
>and self righteousness.
>
>Those good folks had been buying the wood and matches for many a month beforehand.
I lived in the Southwest at that very time, Will, and you don't know
what you're talking about. Aside from the same kind of nutcase that
saw all rock and roll as 'devil's music' there was no big resentment
against the Beatles before that time.
You don't like it when I tell you what goes on in Northern Ireland,
Will. How about letting someone from the American South tell you about
how it was in the American South in 1966?
>
>I like Out of Time and Automatic for the People Lizz...............but REM aren't in
>the same league as the Beatles or even for that matter The Everly Brothers.
Now you're being silly.
>
>Stipe should put a pin in his big bloody head and get real. If he reckons the Beatles
>music is only fit for elevators, then farmers may start playing REM albums in pig stys.
Michael Stipe is *not* R.E.M. He is one-third of R.E.M.
He said in one interview years ago that he didn't like the Beatles
very much.
Big Fucking Deal, Will. Lots of people don't feel the Beatles
influenced them greatly. How do you feel about the Velvet Underground?
They positively *loathed* the Beatles. And if you want inflated ego,
go find Lou Reed. But that doesn't mean they weren't a good and
influential band.
R.E.M. was/is also a good and influential band. Deal with it.
By the way, Will, did you ever see 'Being John Malkovich?' Did you
like it?
Guess who was one of the executive producers?
Lizz 'Hint: it wasn't Lou Reed' Holmans
Mister Charlie
with real integrity. After Monster (actually WITH) Monster I pretty much
lost interest in them, except for the old stuff.
A lot of that has to do with me...I have a huge blind spot for new music,
unless it permeates my little cocoon somehow.
And I not only recorded an REM song by myself, I was able to give a shitty
working copy of it to Mike Mills (who wrote it) when he and Peter Buck came
to the radio station I worked at. I love the song 'Rockville' (which is
what I recorded).
I agree with Lizz, it's not as though we have to like one or the other. I
think they've kept a basic integrity many bands don't have but when you lose
your drummer and suddenly acquire huge huge advances (at one point the
biggest of anyone I think) you lose your focus.
And yes, Stipe's loopy lyrics and demeanor can be a bit much after a short
while. But these were arty college guys, not unlike John and Paul started
out to be, and it shows.
Basically, they are allowed NOT to like the Beatles if they so choose. A
LOT of 'modern' and punk bands dissed the Beatles quite openly, either in
interviews, songs, or both. Of course most of these mental midgets faded
after one record, but the point is we are not propping up religious figures
here. Four guys in the best pop/rock band ever are not universally
liked...ah well. They'll live just fine anywah (at least 3 of them will)...
nowhere man
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:41:22 +0100, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >well Lizz, since John was dead we sort of have a finite number of possible
> >demos/out-takes to work with.
>
> But they didn't *have* to do it, did they? Nobody put a gun to their
> collective head and said 'Rework a song John didn't finish and release
> it', did they? They did so because they wanted to make some music and
> some money. Not bad motives--I suspect most musicians share those
> motivations. So why are you condemning R.E.M. for something they may
> not have even done?
what's this about REM NOT having reworked one of their songs for a new single? (six months
or maybe a year or so ago)
they were never any secrets about it. They took one of their old hit tunes and redid the
lyrics for a new single.
Now you're trying to compare what is possible between someone who is living and someone who
is dead. Most unfair.
Come on Lizz. The Beatles chose to make some new music and involved all of their members
by using some of John's demos.
You're trying to compare chalk with cheese.
> >S Club 7 and hundreds of other acts are having number ones here these times. I reckon
> >they shoudl have twice weekly charts...maybe even daily ones ;3)
>
> 'Reveal' has gotten some pretty good reviews, too, and from adult
> reviewers. Comparing them to a band like S Club 7 is rather like
> comparing the Beatles to Westlife.
REM's albums since people got burnt with rubbish like Moster and Hi Fidelity have been
selling over here like lead balloons.
Indeed I haven't even came across Reveal in the shops.
> >those two albums burnt a lot of record buyers......the records were shite and the
> >1991/92 bubble had burst.
>
> They may have been shite to you, but they weren't shite to everybody.
> There is some good stuff on those albums, even though I was
> disappointed in a lot of it. But guess what? I don't think every
> Beatles song was divinely inspired, either.
don't compare REM to the fabs.
> >> Losing Bill Berry also made a big difference, but after his near-death
> >> by aneurysm on the 'Monster' tour, I can't blame him for preferring
> >> farming. They also had a very acrimonious split with their manager
> >> just after 'Monster', and that didn't help, either (the manager was at
> >> fault--sexual harassment is a bad thing, and the band wouldn't
> >> tolerate it). With 'Reveal', they seem to be pulling out of that
> >> inevitable slump and making some great music--again.
> >
> >I'll believe it when I hear it Lizz.
>
> So you're dissing something you haven't even *heard*?
going on recent past experiences, which is all we have to go on, I'll believe it when I hear
it.
Those who loved and bought Out of Time and Automatic got badly burnt with the rubbish that
came after.
Surely, you don't want us to keep the faith when there is no product of worth to speak of.
> Jesus, Will, don't you think that's a little unfair?
see above.
> >> Slagging off Christianity wasn't a terribly bright move, either.
> >
> >no poor journalism and reporting was the problem there. John was bright enough....it
> >was just the media giving southern extremists the opportunity to start bonfires of hate
> >and self righteousness.
> >
> >Those good folks had been buying the wood and matches for many a month beforehand.
>
> I lived in the Southwest at that very time, Will, and you don't know
> what you're talking about.
you may be surprised to note Lizz that tv pictures and still shots made it over as far as
here.
> Aside from the same kind of nutcase that
> saw all rock and roll as 'devil's music' there was no big resentment
> against the Beatles before that time.
don't talk bull Lizz.
The far out christian extremists had had it in for Beatles and their music for a long time.
Indeed, to be honest, they always have it in for what is in vogue with young people.
They saw their opportunity to get out and burn some Beatle records when John's quote was
miscontrued by the media.
They were only too gleeful to get their chance. There's even one old often seen pic (with
a young looking Steve Martin - wasn't him obviously) surrounded by dozens of kids gleefully
burning Beatle records.
> You don't like it when I tell you what goes on in Northern Ireland,
> Will. How about letting someone from the American South tell you about
> how it was in the American South in 1966?
I don't believe talking about christian extremists is a 'local' issue Lizz.
We get CNN here too you know.
> >I like Out of Time and Automatic for the People Lizz...............but REM aren't in
> >the same league as the Beatles or even for that matter The Everly Brothers.
>
> Now you're being silly.
am I?
Do you think that REM are bigger than the Everly's?
I don't. Honestly, seriously....Everly's every time.
> Michael Stipe said in one interview years ago that he didn't like the Beatles
> very much.
>
> Big Fucking Deal, Will. Lots of people don't feel the Beatles
> influenced them greatly. How do you feel about the Velvet Underground?
> They positively *loathed* the Beatles. And if you want inflated ego,
> go find Lou Reed. But that doesn't mean they weren't a good and
> influential band.
>
> R.E.M. was/is also a good and influential band. Deal with it.
>
> By the way, Will, did you ever see 'Being John Malkovich?' Did you
> like it?
>
> Guess who was one of the executive producers?
felt like a stipe production.
Lizz, don't act all outraged when, in the middle of a Beatles newsgroup, your icon get's
rubbished when he slags off the fab four.
Like I mean, wouldn't you have REALLY have cause for great surprise if the opposite were the
case?
Will
Lizz Holmans
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>what's this about REM NOT having reworked one of their songs for a new single? (six months
>or maybe a year or so ago)
>
>they were never any secrets about it. They took one of their old hit tunes and redid the
>lyrics for a new single.
What was it? I'm genuinely curious.
>
>Now you're trying to compare what is possible between someone who is living and someone who
>is dead. Most unfair.
>
>Come on Lizz. The Beatles chose to make some new music and involved all of their members
>by using some of John's demos.
>
>You're trying to compare chalk with cheese.
And R.E.M. chose to do what they did.
Not everyone was so accepting of this tampering with unfinished demos.
I was OK with it.But it wasn't 'The Beatles'. It was three of the
Beatles with a dead person.
>
>REM's albums since people got burnt with rubbish like Moster and Hi Fidelity have been
>selling over here like lead balloons.
I'd like to see the sales figures on Monster in the U.K. If you're
going to claim that it 'sold like lead balloons', some evidence might
be in order.
>
>Indeed I haven't even came across Reveal in the shops.
Could it be you haven't been looking?
You probably didn't see them as the main band on Jools Holland's show
a couple of weeks ago, either. Doesn't mean they weren't there and
weren't well-received.
>
>don't compare REM to the fabs.
Ah, I see.
Are you my mother?
Then don't tell me what I can and cannot do, buster. You're not nearly
big enough.
Seriously, why *can't* I compare them? Because you say so? Because
that would somehow be tarnishing the Beatles? Trust me, Will, nothing
is going to change what the Beatles accomplished, and you know that as
well as I do. But 'not compare'?
Or is it 'compare only if you get the results Will likes?' Because
you, my friend, are doing a whole lot of comparing of the Beatles to
R.E.M.
>
>
>going on recent past experiences, which is all we have to go on, I'll believe it when I hear
>it.
You are dissing something you haven't even heard. Unfuckingbelievable.
>
>Surely, you don't want us to keep the faith when there is no product of worth to speak of.
I don't know, Will. I don't put my faith in pop groups.
>
>you may be surprised to note Lizz that tv pictures and still shots made it over as far as
>here.
Pictures and TV of the Troubles also made it to the States and the
U.K. Yet you say I shouldn't make any statements about what goes on
over there.
don't talk bull Lizz.
>
>The far out christian extremists had had it in for Beatles and their music for a long time.
>
>Indeed, to be honest, they always have it in for what is in vogue with young people.
>
>They saw their opportunity to get out and burn some Beatle records when John's quote was
>miscontrued by the media.
>
>They were only too gleeful to get their chance. There's even one old often seen pic (with
>a young looking Steve Martin - wasn't him obviously) surrounded by dozens of kids gleefully
>burning Beatle records.
I was around, Will. I was *living* where things like this was
happening. I was 13 years old and a Beatlemaniac. I was paying
attention. There's nothing you can tell me about those events that I'm
not familiar with.
>I don't believe talking about christian extremists is a 'local' issue Lizz.
>
>We get CNN here too you know.
There wasn't any CNN at that time, Will. Local news covered the events
extensively, more than the networks did. Were you getting American
network feeds to NI in 1966?
And I don't think anyone in Northern Ireland should be lecturing
anyone in the U.S. about 'Christian extremists.'
>
>
>am I?
>
>Do you think that REM are bigger than the Everly's?
Define 'bigger', Will. Sold more? I bet R.E.M. have. Sounded better? A
subjective judgement, complicated by the fact that you are comparing
two very different subsets.
Which do I like better? For close harmony singing, the Everly
Brothers. For Southern-based rock and roll, R.E.M.
>
>I don't. Honestly, seriously....Everly's every time.
You can like whoever you like and no one is going to stop you. But
that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
>>
>> By the way, Will, did you ever see 'Being John Malkovich?' Did you
>> like it?
>>
>> Guess who was one of the executive producers?
>
>felt like a stipe production.
'Felt like a stipe production'? What does that mean? Are you so
familiar with Stipe productions that you can tell simply by feeling?
How many other Stipe productions have you seen? What does a Stipe
production feel like?
Or, as I suspect, you didn't *know* Michael Stipe had anything to do
with it and now you're trying to sound clever rather than ignorant?
>
>Lizz, don't act all outraged when, in the middle of a Beatles newsgroup, your icon get's
>rubbished when he slags off the fab four.
I have no icons in life, Will. I worship no human being--not even the
Beatles.
>
>Like I mean, wouldn't you have REALLY have cause for great surprise if the opposite were the
>case?
I think it's incredibly stoopid to judge a band's musical output on
one interview by one man. You're on a lot more solid ground when you
criticize the music. R.E.M. has made some crap music. So did Lou Reed.
So did S Club 7. So did the Beatles.
Lizz 'Contrast and compare the musicality, lyricism, and worth of
'Losing My Religion' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'. Worth 50% of
grade' Holmans
Mister Charlie
> Lizz Holmans wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:41:22 +0100, nowhere man
> > <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >
>
> You're trying to compare chalk with cheese.
>
mmmm......ham and chalk sandwich........<Homer gargle>
>
> don't compare REM to the fabs.
a rather brusque statement, innit will?
>
> > >I like Out of Time and Automatic for the People Lizz...............but
REM aren't in
> > >the same league as the Beatles or even for that matter The Everly
Brothers.
> >
> > Now you're being silly.
>
> am I?
>
> Do you think that REM are bigger than the Everly's?
>
> I don't. Honestly, seriously....Everly's every time.
I would have used a different word that the tamer 'silly'...but REM is not
just another band. They are (or were) very much like the Fabs, and are more
like them than not. As much as I love the Everly's (or anyone, as you could
insert practically any band name there) REM are surely above the Everly's
league, although not quite in the Beatles'. Again, and I must stress,
IMHO!!!
nowhere man
> >don't compare REM to the fabs.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> Are you my mother?
>
> Then don't tell me what I can and cannot do, buster. You're not nearly
> big enough.
>
> Seriously, why *can't* I compare them? Because you say so? Because
> that would somehow be tarnishing the Beatles? Trust me, Will, nothing
> is going to change what the Beatles accomplished, and you know that as
> well as I do. But 'not compare'?
>
> Or is it 'compare only if you get the results Will likes?' Because
> you, my friend, are doing a whole lot of comparing of the Beatles to
> R.E.M.
> You are dissing something you haven't even heard. Unfuckingbelievable.
Lizz, let me cut to the chase. Sod off.
You would start a row in an empty room. Your posts have always had this underlying problem.
You talk AT people rather than talk TO them.
So go away and compare your precious Stipe to the Beatles. I'm sure you'll go down well on the
comedy circuit.
Will
> Lizz 'Contrast and compare the musicality, lyricism, and worth of
> 'Losing My Religion' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'. Worth 50% of
> grade' Holmans
yawn
nowhere man
> REM is not
> just another band. They are (or were) very much like the Fabs, and are more
> like them than not.
chuck, with all due respect, you're going to start comparing the grateful dead,
or even oasis, next to the fabs.
Such comparisons are most unfair on all concerned. The Beatles are widely
acknowledged to have been the best rock and roll band of their generation.
Indeed, EVEN though it is more than 30 years since they broke up, they are
still topping record charts and surveys.
You just have to look at the volume of posts in here every day (400 or so) with
respect to the other music newsgroups.
> As much as I love the Everly's (or anyone, as you could
> insert practically any band name there) REM are surely above the Everly's
> league, although not quite in the Beatles'. Again, and I must stress,
> IMHO!!!
for harmonies alone, I'd play me Everly tapes any day before REM.
Will
Lizz Holmans
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>Lizz, let me cut to the chase. Sod off.
>
>You would start a row in an empty room. Your posts have always had this underlying problem.
>You talk AT people rather than talk TO them.
>
>So go away and compare your precious Stipe to the Beatles. I'm sure you'll go down well on the
>comedy circuit.
Have you noticed this pattern? When you run out of arguments, you
start in on me. This is called 'ad hominem' arguing, Will. More
informally, this is called 'personal flaming.'
I've always thought you were against personal flames. Oh, I'm sorry, I
misunderstood; you're opposed to personal flames against you.
>
>yawn
Lizz 'Shock horror! NI man hates internyms--American woman laughs like
drain'
Mister Charlie
> Mister Charlie wrote:
>
> > REM is not
> > just another band. They are (or were) very much like the Fabs, and are
more
> > like them than not.
>
> chuck, with all due respect, you're going to start comparing the grateful
dead,
> or even oasis, next to the fabs.
nope, not me. Neither one is close.
>
> Such comparisons are most unfair on all concerned. The Beatles are widely
> acknowledged to have been the best rock and roll band of their generation.
> Indeed, EVEN though it is more than 30 years since they broke up, they
are
> still topping record charts and surveys.
What I refer to is the way they started, the fact they helped bring a lot of
60's sounds BACK to music in the 80's, and the fact that the band members
were well known for caring about the music over commerce, at least for
awhile. As to sales and whether they will be around in another ten years
(they've already been together for 20) well, it is possible. But certainly
not on the scale of the Beatles.
>
> You just have to look at the volume of posts in here every day (400 or so)
with
> respect to the other music newsgroups.
I dunno...I assume there is an REM ng, not that I've looked. I doubt it's
this busy tho (23.67% of this place is swamp bilge anyway) :)
>
>
>
>
> > As much as I love the Everly's (or anyone, as you could
> > insert practically any band name there) REM are surely above the
Everly's
> > league, although not quite in the Beatles'. Again, and I must stress,
> > IMHO!!!
>
> for harmonies alone, I'd play me Everly tapes any day before REM.
well, that's fine. we all have our fave groups...that's one of yours. I
doubt that many others here would choose the everlys over almost any
comparable (i.e., 60's-90's pop/rock band) you could name,. They just
weren't THAT big, though they were influential. They WERE that big in the
50's, early 60's, let me amend that. After that...? Wings Of A
Nightingale? These Shoes (God I love that song!)...neither made much of a
dent I'm afraid, except for fans such as yourself who already loved them.
>
> Will
>
>
nowhere man
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:19:30 +0100, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >>Lizz, let me cut to the chase. Sod off.
> >
> >You would start a row in an empty room. Your posts have always had this underlying problem.
> >You talk AT people rather than talk TO them.
> >
> >So go away and compare your precious Stipe to the Beatles. I'm sure you'll go down well on the
> >comedy circuit.
>
> Have you noticed this pattern?
the one where you have always talked AT people?
Yip, it has been noticable for many a long year in here.
> When you run out of arguments, you
> start in on me. This is called 'ad hominem' arguing, Will. More
> informally, this is called 'personal flaming.'
you're the one who can't hold an adult discussion in here Lizz.
> I've always thought you were against personal flames. Oh, I'm sorry, I
> misunderstood; you're opposed to personal flames against you.
you will note that YOU were the one who started cursing in this thread.
Lizz, let's just avoid each other. I don't like being involved in any threads that you are in.
I've always found you overbearing and narrow minded, as well as very cold.
Let's just leave each other well alone.
Will
> >yawn
>
> Lizz 'Shock horror! NI man hates internyms--American woman laughs like
> drain'
the first 3 days of them might have been amusing, but a neverending 3 years of them does take the
biscuit.
Sixties Gen
Time out, boys and girls. Personally, I could give a rat's ass about
REM. I just find it odd that any Rock musician would be so ignorant
as to call The Beatles' music as "elevator" music. And any musician
who would describe the music of the Fabs as such raises the question
of his/her musical credibility.
Of course, one can compare any musician or band to The Beatles, that
is his/her right. Lizz has every right to compare anyone she wants to
The Beatles...from the Strawberry Alarm Clock to Green Day...however
it is unlikely that the results will have the other band come out on
top. Someone once said many years ago that "The Beatles were
magic...everybody else was just a trick". I have come to believe that
over the years.
Valic9
Everyone's allowed to not like someone, but calling The Beatles music elevator
music is so off base it's not even funny. The other thing that bothers me is I
hear a little Beatle influence in some of their songs, including their new
single. Just like when Squeeze said they weren't Beatle fans some time back, I
thought that was ridiculous. If you are going to say you don't like somebody,
then don't sound like them. At least we can give the Velvet Underground that.
Sam
Tom
> influenced them greatly. How do you feel about the Velvet Underground?
> They positively *loathed* the Beatles. And if you want inflated ego,
> go find Lou Reed. But that doesn't mean they weren't a good and
> influential band.
>
Now, Zappa they loathed.
AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs
<qqhkht0nchvbkkdoi...@4ax.com>, Lizz stated:
>
>Lizz 'Contrast and compare the musicality, lyricism, and worth of
>'Losing My Religion' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'. Worth 50% of
>grade' Holmans
>
>
Their (REM's) most recent CD is far and away the best thing they've ever done,
as an entire work. They've taken some pages from Jeff Buckley's and XTC's books
and benefited greatly from it. They're still a pretty so-so band, though. While
MSH wasn't a high point for the Beatles, they had many high points. Similarly,
Lou Reed's highs are *very* high. OTOH, REM has produced a pretty bland body of
work, on the whole.
interstate5
Mister Charlie
"Valic9" <val...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010603145502...@ng-cp1.news.cs.com...
Good points, sam.
Funny thing, in my last job they played Muzak all day, and I noted here a
while back how odd it was to hear some of the Beatle tunes they chose to
highlight. Rather than the usual Beatle top Ten they would do 'You Like me
Too Much' or other semi-obscure tunes.
They also used to do 'Seven Chinese Brothers' and 'South Central Rain' Muzak
from REM, again somewhat startling in the choices.
So if Michael said that about the Fabs, he is entitled to his opinion, but
he is also now officially elevator music.
nowhere man
> this "nowhere man" sure has some firm, authoritative opinions about
> R.E.M., considering he obviously has zero knowledge of the band's
> albums prior to Out of Time..
yip, when someone refers to the Beatles music as being 'elavator music' I
do have some straightforward opinions to offer.
I trust you don't have a problem with that.
> .yes, that's about eight years of further
> radio airplay and rave reviews, which still forms the crux of the
> group's lasting contribution and influence. actually, it sounds like he
> has heard just two R.E.M. albums in detail, and superficially dismisses
> the others based on either less-than-charttopping sales or one trivial
> quote from an old Stipe interview!
'trivial?'
friggin 'trivial' you say?
Calling the Beatles music 'elavator music' doesn't sound much like a
trivial comment to me.
Does Stipe make many such 'trivial' comments?
> (and by the way, Out of Time doesn't
> even rank in the top half of R.E.M.'s catalog, creatively speaking.)
>
> oh, and if you claim a band's worth can be measured by its volume of
> Usenet posts, then the Dave Matthews Band and Tool (among others) must
> be miles better than the Beatles. and those newsgroups don't devote 80%
> of their posts to dopey personal squabbles.
Jim, don't try and defend that which can't be defended. Just admit your
hero opened his big mouth without his brain in gear and be done with it.
Sure, of course, he's welcome to his opinions, just as others have the
right to laugh with derision at those same opinions.
Will
TheMutant
> Jim Baldwin wrote:
>
> > this "nowhere man" sure has some firm, authoritative opinions about
> > R.E.M., considering he obviously has zero knowledge of the band's
> > albums prior to Out of Time..
>
> yip, when someone refers to the Beatles music as being 'elavator music' I
> do have some straightforward opinions to offer.
I can't disagree with that sentiment.
>
> I trust you don't have a problem with that.
>
>
>
> > .yes, that's about eight years of further
> > radio airplay and rave reviews, which still forms the crux of the
> > group's lasting contribution and influence. actually, it sounds like he
> > has heard just two R.E.M. albums in detail, and superficially dismisses
> > the others based on either less-than-charttopping sales or one trivial
> > quote from an old Stipe interview!
>
> 'trivial?'
>
> friggin 'trivial' you say?
>
> Calling the Beatles music 'elavator music' doesn't sound much like a
> trivial comment to me.
I think it's trivial. I like REM, but who really cares what Stipe thinks? He
doesn't determine who I like or not. It has nothing to do with his music
either. If he doesn't like the Beatles, that's his opinion, and his alone.
>
> Does Stipe make many such 'trivial' comments?
>
Probably, but again, who cares? He's just one guy.
>
>
> > (and by the way, Out of Time doesn't
> > even rank in the top half of R.E.M.'s catalog, creatively speaking.)
> >
> > oh, and if you claim a band's worth can be measured by its volume of
> > Usenet posts, then the Dave Matthews Band and Tool (among others) must
> > be miles better than the Beatles. and those newsgroups don't devote 80%
> > of their posts to dopey personal squabbles.
>
> Jim, don't try and defend that which can't be defended. Just admit your
> hero opened his big mouth without his brain in gear and be done with it.
But who cares? It really has no effect on REM's music.
>
> Sure, of course, he's welcome to his opinions, just as others have the
> right to laugh with derision at those same opinions.
>
Surely.
Burp Bacharach
> Jim Baldwin wrote:
> > .yes, that's about eight years of further
> > radio airplay and rave reviews, which still forms the crux of the
> > group's lasting contribution and influence.
what "influence"?
what "lasting contribution"?
theyre a college band who had a few hits.
end of story.
nowhere man
just to clarify that Nick was responding to 'Jim Baldwin' and not myself
in the above post.
Will
Mister Charlie
their influence and contribution came long before their 'hits'. It's not
always about grosses. When they first came out I could not be bothered with
them. But within a few years I had to play Rockville on an alternative
country station I was on and it cooked!
Then I got the Reckoning LP and heard sixties sounds updated and fed to the
new college crowds. It was great, imaginative stuff (remember this was the
80's...not much else goin on!). Other than Reckoning the only other LP's I
own by REM are the two Will has (Automatic and Out of Time) and I got
Monster free at work and except for a brief cursory listen I have never
listened again.
So I am not a rabid fan, but I still recognize the contribution they did
indeed make, bringing back the Byrds-like guitar sound and retro attitude to
a moribund rock scene. To slog them off as merely a college band who had a
few hits isn't nearly correct.
OK. I'm done.
"nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3B1ADD00...@lineone.net...
Burp Bacharach
yep, sorry for unclear attribution.
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>
>Lizz, let's just avoid each other. I don't like being involved in any threads
>that you are in.
>I've always found you overbearing and narrow minded, as well as very cold.
>
>Let's just leave each other well alone.
_Winchester Abbey_, by Calamity Jane Austin
Sheriff Will strode manfully up to the table where the lady who's know
as Lizz was sitting with her deck of cards.
His voice steely, he said, 'Ma'am, this town ain't big enough for the
both of us.'
Miz Libby stopped dealing her hand of solitaire briefly. She looked up
at the lowering sheriff, her eyes limpid as limpid things, and smiled.
'That's probably true, Sheriff honey, that's probably true. But I think
I'll let you stay anyway.'
Lizz 'Mad, bad, and dangerous to know' Holmans
P.S. Thanks and gratitude to the person who made that felicitous tpyo
first, whose name I shall never remember.
--
Lizz Holmans
Lizz Holmans
Gen <sixti...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Time out, boys and girls. Personally, I could give a rat's ass about
>REM. I just find it odd that any Rock musician would be so ignorant
>as to call The Beatles' music as "elevator" music. And any musician
>who would describe the music of the Fabs as such raises the question
>of his/her musical credibility.
>
>Of course, one can compare any musician or band to The Beatles, that
>is his/her right. Lizz has every right to compare anyone she wants to
>The Beatles...from the Strawberry Alarm Clock to Green Day...however
>it is unlikely that the results will have the other band come out on
>top. Someone once said many years ago that "The Beatles were
>magic...everybody else was just a trick". I have come to believe that
>over the years.
What will apparently doesn't understand is that I already have compared
R.E.M. to the Beatles. I prefer the Beatles, on the whole.
A musician's 'credibility' should be based on his musical output, not on
anything sie might say in an interview. R.E.M.'s musical output has been
very good for the most part. Of course they're not the Beatles--but they
didn't set out to be. They set out to be R.E.M.
Many of us here in RMB don't like it when folks pipe up about John's
private life, or Paul's marriage, or George's affairs as if that somehow
meant their music was invalid. I think the music stands on its own
merit. I liked the Beatles' music long before I knew much of anything
about them as people; I still don't know much about them as people,
since I have never met any of them.
Forming opinions about a person's music based on one interview is rather
fatuous, don't you think? It's about the music, not the personalities.
If you (not *you*, but you) don't like R.E.M.'s music, that's your
right. Don't buy it, don't listen to it. That goes for Green Day, Jello
Biafra, or Verdi.
Lizz 'Leonard Bernstein!' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Lizz Holmans
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> writes
>
>
>Their (REM's) most recent CD is far and away the best thing they've ever done,
>as an entire work. They've taken some pages from Jeff Buckley's and XTC's books
>and benefited greatly from it. They're still a pretty so-so band, though. While
>MSH wasn't a high point for the Beatles, they had many high points. Similarly,
>Lou Reed's highs are *very* high. OTOH, REM has produced a pretty bland body of
>work, on the whole.
Oh, I dunno. I find 'Reckoning' to be a wonderfully cohesive work.
'Monster' may be many things, but it isn't bland. Some of the songs on
Automatic are downright soppy, though--I can only listen to 'Everybody
Hurts' so long before I start cringing--but they make up for it by the
thoughtful and touching 'Try Not to Breathe.'
I don't care for Lou Reed's solo music very much. I find it tiresome
after a while. He's *so* hip it hurts. But he does get extra credit for
recording the single most unlistenable album in the history of the
world.
I don't hear XTC or Jeff Buckley in 'Reveal.' Aside from his
extraordinary voice, Jeff Buckley's stuff was not groundbreaking
musically. He was a singer/songwriter who also did grunge and some very
eclectic covers. But there's no separating Jeff Buckley from his voice.
Michael Stipe never had that kind of range or emotionality, and still
doesn't.
What I hear is R.E.M. going back to being R.E.M.
Lizz 'Which is nice' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
phantom 309
> I don't care for Lou Reed's solo music very much. I find it tiresome
> after a while. He's *so* hip it hurts. But he does get extra credit for
> recording the single most unlistenable album in the history of the
> world.
ah, the "strictly fishwrapper" school of music criticism........(apolgies to
bazz luhrman)
nowhere man
> Forming opinions about a person's music based on one interview is rather
> fatuous, don't you think? It's about the music, not the personalities.
obviously you have a problem with comprehension Lizz.....or else you are
deliberately trying to mislead with such a statement.
I have formed my own opinions on REM over many years.
So don't try and mislead the good folks of the town.
Will
AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs
<h$UASIANX...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Lizz stated:
>
>
>I don't care for Lou Reed's solo music very much. I find it tiresome
>after a while. He's *so* hip it hurts. But he does get extra credit for
>recording the single most unlistenable album in the history of the
>world.
>
I assume you're talking about Metal Machine Music? Whatever you think of that,
it was hardly representative of the rest of his work. You can't easily dismiss
albums like Berlin, Transformer, Street Hassle, Coney Island Baby; at least, I
can't.
>I don't hear XTC or Jeff Buckley in 'Reveal.'
The XTC influences are a lot easier to hear. Track 9 could have been written by
Andy Partridge. But YMMV, as they say. I do hear Stipe trying to do something
different with his voice (alternately burying it in some of the more psychedelic
tracks near the front of the record, or trying to change its timbre a bit
(finally!)).
interstate5
Lizz Holmans
<was...@kingdom.com> writes
Au contraire. I can listen to Lou Reed for a while; just not a very
*long* while. I have a much higher Velvet Underground tolerance--I can
listen to Reed for a lot longer if John Cale is in the vicinity.
'Metal Machine Music_ is the Finnegans Wake of music; I don't know
anyone who has every actually finished the damn thing. I'm sure people
have finished it, but it's beyond me, and my hat's off to 'em.
Lizz 'But it can clear a room of unwanted guests in 1.5 minutes max'
Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>obviously you have a problem with comprehension Lizz.....or else you are
>deliberately trying to mislead with such a statement.
>
>I have formed my own opinions on REM over many years.
>
>So don't try and mislead the good folks of the town.
Will, dear one, not everything I post is to or about you, even in this
thread. Shocking, but true. I was responding to someone else about what
sie had said.
Besides, I thought you weren't speaking to me.
Lizz 'Promises, always promises' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Lizz Holmans
<AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> writes
>>
>
>I assume you're talking about Metal Machine Music? Whatever you think of that,
>it was hardly representative of the rest of his work. You can't easily dismiss
>albums like Berlin, Transformer, Street Hassle, Coney Island Baby; at least, I
>can't.
You assume correctly.
I don't dismiss his albums at all. I just don't listen to much of his
solo stuff.
>
>>I don't hear XTC or Jeff Buckley in 'Reveal.'
>
>The XTC influences are a lot easier to hear. Track 9 could have been written by
>Andy Partridge. But YMMV, as they say. I do hear Stipe trying to do something
>different with his voice (alternately burying it in some of the more psychedelic
>tracks near the front of the record, or trying to change its timbre a bit
>(finally!)).
But the burying in the mix is the Real Old R.E.M. Stipe used to insist
that they mix his voice no louder than the other instruments--e.g.
Chronic Town and Murmur, especially.
Stipe doesn't have much variation in his voice, true. His is a limited
instrument that he uses rather effectively (in other words, it's a rock
and roll voice, not a 'real' voice). But his falsetto in 'Tongue' was a
definite change, so I don't see anything in 'Reveal' as being
unprecedented.
But, on the whole, its a definite improvement over the last two albums.
Lizz 'thanking the Deity of my choice for that' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
nowhere man
> Will, dear one, not everything I post is to or about you, even in this
> thread. Shocking, but true. I was responding to someone else about what
> sie had said.
>
> Besides, I thought you weren't speaking to me.
>
> Lizz 'Promises, always promises' Holmans
Lizz you're sounding more and more like some sort of aggregate of danny
meets marek
phantom 309
> In article <9fg38...@drn.newsguy.com>, AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs
> <AllYourBaseAreB...@newsguy.com> writes
> >>
> >
> >I assume you're talking about Metal Machine Music? Whatever you think of
that,
> >it was hardly representative of the rest of his work. You can't easily
dismiss
> >albums like Berlin, Transformer, Street Hassle, Coney Island Baby; at
least, I
> >can't.
>
> You assume correctly.
>
> I don't dismiss his albums at all. I just don't listen to much of his
> solo stuff.
yet you fee l qulaified to judgements on his solo career as whole?
tsk tsk, how very silly...:)
phantom 309
> In article <9fft8b$t6t$0...@pita.alt.net>, phantom 309
> <was...@kingdom.com> writes
> >
> >"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:h$UASIANX...@jackalope.demon.co.uk...
> >> I don't care for Lou Reed's solo music very much. I find it tiresome
> >> after a while. He's *so* hip it hurts. But he does get extra credit for
> >> recording the single most unlistenable album in the history of the
> >> world.
> >
> >ah, the "strictly fishwrapper" school of music criticism........(apolgies
to
> >bazz luhrman)
>
> Au contraire. I can listen to Lou Reed for a while; just not a very
> *long* while. I have a much higher Velvet Underground tolerance--I can
> listen to Reed for a lot longer if John Cale is in the vicinity.
>
> 'Metal Machine Music_ is the Finnegans Wake of music;
rubbish., its contractual obligation music.
Lizz Holmans
<was...@kingdom.com> writes
>
Perhaps I haven't listened to it enough. But I have an idea: how 'bout
you listen to it for me and get back to me?
Lizz 'I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Berliner today' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
nowhere man
> In article <3B1AC875...@lineone.net>, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > friggin 'trivial' you say?
> >
> > Calling the Beatles music 'elavator music' doesn't sound much like a
> > trivial comment to me.
>
> no? well, please set your priorities in order. Stipe merely insulted a
> band you like...not you, your wife, your friends, or family. you really
> can't shrug this off? mercy.
take a look at the name of this newsgroup.......... rec.music.beatles
it sort of gives the game away
now things like:- the weather, the state of the world, or how often Shep
gets his leg over, may WELL be trivial comments.
but when someone in the public eye slags the Beatles, then such things are
significant in a newsgroup like this one.
> if Stipe should endorse forced sterilization of all people under 5'7",
> then i'll protest right beside you. that wouldn't be so trivial. in the
> meantime, i won't demand that he share my musical tastes. considering
> all the helpful exposure R.E.M. has given to unjustly overlooked bands
> over the years (the list is huge), i can easily ignore one off-the-cuff
> swipe at the Beatles.
and that's your right.
> re-read Charlie's post. he may not be a big fan, but he understands
> where R.E.M. is coming from, much better than you. your "it all boils
> down to two albums from 1991-92" theory proves nothing but your own
> light, MTV-fed familiarity with the group.
a little bit of hypocrisy here on your part since it was bands like REM who
enjoyed BIG TIME the first fruits of MTV coverage across the early 1990s.
> regards,
> jim b.
>
> ps what's an "elavator"? some sort of electronic toilet? ;-)
aye, it's where I keep my REM albums ;3)
moondog
Lizz Holmans wrote:
<slash>
Lizz 'I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Berliner today' Holmans
>
Love yer work, Wimpy! :-)
Strabbo
> >
> what's this about REM NOT having reworked one of their songs for a new
single? (six months
> or maybe a year or so ago)
>
> they were never any secrets about it. They took one of their old hit
tunes and redid the
> lyrics for a new single.
Wait a minute....if you're talking about "Shiny Happy Monsters", that was
just for Sesame Street...it doesn't count.
Marty
(PS: I still feel the obligation to turn the radio up just a little bit
louder when 'It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)'
comes on. Just a throwback from days gone by I guess.)
> Now you're trying to compare what is possible between someone who is
living and someone who
> is dead. Most unfair.
>
> Come on Lizz. The Beatles chose to make some new music and involved all
of their members
> by using some of John's demos.
>
> You're trying to compare chalk with cheese.
>
>
>
>
> > >S Club 7 and hundreds of other acts are having number ones here these
times. I reckon
> > >they shoudl have twice weekly charts...maybe even daily ones ;3)
> >
> > 'Reveal' has gotten some pretty good reviews, too, and from adult
> > reviewers. Comparing them to a band like S Club 7 is rather like
> > comparing the Beatles to Westlife.
>
> REM's albums since people got burnt with rubbish like Moster and Hi
Fidelity have been
> selling over here like lead balloons.
>
> Indeed I haven't even came across Reveal in the shops.
>
>
>
> > >those two albums burnt a lot of record buyers......the records were
shite and the
> > >1991/92 bubble had burst.
> >
> > They may have been shite to you, but they weren't shite to everybody.
> > There is some good stuff on those albums, even though I was
> > disappointed in a lot of it. But guess what? I don't think every
> > Beatles song was divinely inspired, either.
>
> don't compare REM to the fabs.
>
>
>
>
> > >> Losing Bill Berry also made a big difference, but after his
near-death
> > >> by aneurysm on the 'Monster' tour, I can't blame him for preferring
> > >> farming. They also had a very acrimonious split with their manager
> > >> just after 'Monster', and that didn't help, either (the manager was
at
> > >> fault--sexual harassment is a bad thing, and the band wouldn't
> > >> tolerate it). With 'Reveal', they seem to be pulling out of that
> > >> inevitable slump and making some great music--again.
> > >
> > >I'll believe it when I hear it Lizz.
> >
> > So you're dissing something you haven't even *heard*?
>
> going on recent past experiences, which is all we have to go on, I'll
believe it when I hear
> it.
>
> Those who loved and bought Out of Time and Automatic got badly burnt with
the rubbish that
> came after.
>
> Surely, you don't want us to keep the faith when there is no product of
worth to speak of.
>
>
>
> > Jesus, Will, don't you think that's a little unfair?
>
> see above.
>
>
>
>
> > >> Slagging off Christianity wasn't a terribly bright move, either.
> > >
> > >no poor journalism and reporting was the problem there. John was
bright enough....it
> > >was just the media giving southern extremists the opportunity to start
bonfires of hate
> > >and self righteousness.
> > >
> > >Those good folks had been buying the wood and matches for many a month
beforehand.
> >
> > I lived in the Southwest at that very time, Will, and you don't know
> > what you're talking about.
>
> you may be surprised to note Lizz that tv pictures and still shots made it
over as far as
> here.
>
>
>
>
> > Aside from the same kind of nutcase that
> > saw all rock and roll as 'devil's music' there was no big resentment
> > against the Beatles before that time.
>
> don't talk bull Lizz.
>
> The far out christian extremists had had it in for Beatles and their music
for a long time.
>
> Indeed, to be honest, they always have it in for what is in vogue with
young people.
>
> They saw their opportunity to get out and burn some Beatle records when
John's quote was
> miscontrued by the media.
>
> They were only too gleeful to get their chance. There's even one old
often seen pic (with
> a young looking Steve Martin - wasn't him obviously) surrounded by dozens
of kids gleefully
> burning Beatle records.
>
>
>
>
> > You don't like it when I tell you what goes on in Northern Ireland,
> > Will. How about letting someone from the American South tell you about
> > how it was in the American South in 1966?
>
> I don't believe talking about christian extremists is a 'local' issue
Lizz.
>
> We get CNN here too you know.
>
>
>
>
> > >I like Out of Time and Automatic for the People Lizz...............but
REM aren't in
> > >the same league as the Beatles or even for that matter The Everly
Brothers.
> >
> > Now you're being silly.
>
> am I?
>
> Do you think that REM are bigger than the Everly's?
>
> I don't. Honestly, seriously....Everly's every time.
>
>
>
>
> > Michael Stipe said in one interview years ago that he didn't like the
Beatles
> > very much.
> >
> > Big Fucking Deal, Will. Lots of people don't feel the Beatles
> > influenced them greatly. How do you feel about the Velvet Underground?
> > They positively *loathed* the Beatles. And if you want inflated ego,
> > go find Lou Reed. But that doesn't mean they weren't a good and
> > influential band.
> >
> > R.E.M. was/is also a good and influential band. Deal with it.
> >
> > By the way, Will, did you ever see 'Being John Malkovich?' Did you
> > like it?
> >
> > Guess who was one of the executive producers?
>
> felt like a stipe production.
>
> Lizz, don't act all outraged when, in the middle of a Beatles newsgroup,
your icon get's
> rubbished when he slags off the fab four.
>
> Like I mean, wouldn't you have REALLY have cause for great surprise if the
opposite were the
> case?
>
> Will
>
Mister Charlie
"Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:thvpst...@corp.supernews.com...
> nowhere man <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B1A440A...@lineone.net...
> > >
> > what's this about REM NOT having reworked one of their songs for a new
> single? (six months
> > or maybe a year or so ago)
> >
> > they were never any secrets about it. They took one of their old hit
> tunes and redid the
> > lyrics for a new single.
>
> Wait a minute....if you're talking about "Shiny Happy Monsters", that was
> just for Sesame Street...it doesn't count.
>
>
LOL! Heehee...Marty, ya crack me up man! No, actually it was a remake
called 'Seven Chinese Dinners' for the Food Channel. :)
nowhere man
> nowhere man <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B1A440A...@lineone.net...
> > >
> > what's this about REM NOT having reworked one of their songs for a new
> single? (six months
> > or maybe a year or so ago)
> >
> > they were never any secrets about it. They took one of their old hit
> tunes and redid the
> > lyrics for a new single.
>
> Wait a minute....if you're talking about "Shiny Happy Monsters", that was
> just for Sesame Street...it doesn't count.
LOL!
Will