Red Mosquito

I agree. To me The Heartbreakers is a more legitimate example. But Bruce bends the rules a bit. It is different. But I would've been loathe not to mention E Street Band.

durdencommatyler wrote:I agree. To me The Heartbreakers is a more legitimate example. But Bruce bends the rules a bit. It is different. But I would've been loathe not to mention E Street Band.

Bruce may be front and center but those albums wouldn't have been those albums without the E Street Band.

I am also a fair sized Eagles fan.

I am also a big Ramones fan but as much as I dig them R.E.M. stands on top.

oasisfan35 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I agree. To me The Heartbreakers is a more legitimate example. But Bruce bends the rules a bit. It is different. But I would've been loathe not to mention E Street Band.

Bruce may be front and center but those albums wouldn't have been those albums without the E Street Band.

I am also a fair sized Eagles fan.

I am also a big Ramones fan but as much as I dig them R.E.M. stands on top.

I have no issue with someone placing REM on top of the Ramones. I think a compelling argument could be made either way. I just happen to prefer The Ramones and think their overall contribution to music and music history is a little heavier and more interesting.

durdencommatyler wrote:Nirvana had three studio albums, bub. And two of them are two of the best albums of their decade.

And fuck yeah The Ramones! But to incur even more of your wrath, I would also add The White Stripes, The Decemberists and The Mynabirds to my personal list of American bands that trump R.E.M. But those three are personal favorites that I don't imagine would argue well in the grand scheme. Maybe The White Stripes. I don't know. But I think a good argument could be made for any of the bands I initially stated.

Bleach doesn't count.

And the other two are good, but in the same decade rem had hifi, automatic, monster, and out if time. Plus two other decades!

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Nirvana had three studio albums, bub. And two of them are two of the best albums of their decade.

And fuck yeah The Ramones! But to incur even more of your wrath, I would also add The White Stripes, The Decemberists and The Mynabirds to my personal list of American bands that trump R.E.M. But those three are personal favorites that I don't imagine would argue well in the grand scheme. Maybe The White Stripes. I don't know. But I think a good argument could be made for any of the bands I initially stated.

Bleach doesn't count.

And the other two are good, but in the same decade rem had hifi, automatic, monster, and out if time. Plus two other decades!

Why in the holy hell doesn't Bleach count?! Silly goose.

And I'm not sure why the quantity of their catalog should/would hurt how they measure up. I mean, given the outstanding quality of those two (though really it's THREE) albums.

Hi-Fi I would rank among the best albums of the 90s, right up there with Nevermind and In Utero. I might even rank it above Nevermind. And Automatic is a stellar album, but it's got nothing on Nirvana. Out of Time really doesn't even belong in the discussion. Half of it is throw-away.

Incesitice is better than Monster and Out of Time, too, by the way.

durdencommatyler wrote:Incesitice is better than Monster and Out of Time, too, by the way.

Forgive him lord, he knows not what he does

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Incesitice is better than Monster and Out of Time, too, by the way.

Forgive him lord, he knows not what he does

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Nirvana had three studio albums, bub. And two of them are two of the best albums of their decade.

And fuck yeah The Ramones! But to incur even more of your wrath, I would also add The White Stripes, The Decemberists and The Mynabirds to my personal list of American bands that trump R.E.M. But those three are personal favorites that I don't imagine would argue well in the grand scheme. Maybe The White Stripes. I don't know. But I think a good argument could be made for any of the bands I initially stated.

Bleach doesn't count.

And the other two are good, but in the same decade rem had hifi, automatic, monster, and out if time. Plus two other decades!

Why in the holy hell doesn't Bleach count?! Silly goose.

And I'm not sure why the quantity of their catalog should/would hurt how they measure up. I mean, given the outstanding quality of those two (though really it's THREE) albums.

Hi-Fi I would rank among the best albums of the 90s, right up there with Nevermind and In Utero. I might even rank it above Nevermind. And Automatic is a stellar album, but it's got nothing on Nirvana. Out of Time really doesn't even belong in the discussion. Half of it is throw-away.

I think the quantity matters because we are talking about the greatest band, and so we should be looking at a career and both the consistency and volume of high quality output. Nirvana has two great records. Lots of bands have two great records

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Nirvana had three studio albums, bub. And two of them are two of the best albums of their decade.

And fuck yeah The Ramones! But to incur even more of your wrath, I would also add The White Stripes, The Decemberists and The Mynabirds to my personal list of American bands that trump R.E.M. But those three are personal favorites that I don't imagine would argue well in the grand scheme. Maybe The White Stripes. I don't know. But I think a good argument could be made for any of the bands I initially stated.

Bleach doesn't count.

And the other two are good, but in the same decade rem had hifi, automatic, monster, and out if time. Plus two other decades!

Why in the holy hell doesn't Bleach count?! Silly goose.

And I'm not sure why the quantity of their catalog should/would hurt how they measure up. I mean, given the outstanding quality of those two (though really it's THREE) albums.

Hi-Fi I would rank among the best albums of the 90s, right up there with Nevermind and In Utero. I might even rank it above Nevermind. And Automatic is a stellar album, but it's got nothing on Nirvana. Out of Time really doesn't even belong in the discussion. Half of it is throw-away.

I think the quantity matters because we are talking about the greatest band, and so we should be looking at a career and both the consistency and volume of high quality output. Nirvana has two great records. Lots of bands have two great records

But few bands have two great records that defined the sound of a decade and inspired a new subgenre of music and spawned legions of imitators. Few bands have two great albums as good as Nevermind and In Utero. The fact that Nirvana accomplished all it did with three studio albums, a b-side collection and an unplugged record speaks more to me about the quality and longevity of the band than two/three decades worth of output.

REM wrote a shit ton of great songs. But they only have two albums that I listen to from beginning to end and reach for on a consistent basis. And if I hold those two up against Nirvana's best two, Nirvana wins easily.

All I can keep thinking is that R.E.M. did fifteen years and ten albums in a row, and none of them came in below "really good." Several are all-time classics. There's really no other band that comes to my mind with that consistency over that period of time.

I'm always a little wary of incorporating the amount of influence on other acts into judging the quality of a band's work. It's good to measure their impact, but I don't know if it actually adds to an album's quality, at least speaking for me.

Besides, I think you could argue that a large chunk of alternative rock over the last 30 years has been markedly influenced, whether first or second-hand, by R.E.M. Nirvana's probably the most popular example of all.

digster wrote:All I can keep thinking is that R.E.M. did fifteen years and ten albums in a row, and none of them came in below "really good." Several are all-time classics. There's really no other band that comes to my mind with that consistency over that period of time.

I have no problem with folks putting them in the top spot. There are arguments to be made and it's hard not to love what they accomplished.

They just don't do for me what they do for many others. To me, REM has two GREAT albums, three really good albums, an three uneven albums, a terrible album, and an album I haven't heard. If I hold up their best five against Pearl Jam's best five, Pearl Jam comes out on top. In fact, PJ is about to release their tenth album, and I'd argue they haven't had one below "good", yet. And only one below "really good" maybe. Maybe.

digster wrote:I'm always a little wary of incorporating the amount of influence on other acts into judging the quality of a band's work.

I don't, it's far too subjective.; I understand it happened but it's not an appreciable bit for me in regard to their own work.

digster wrote:I'm always a little wary of incorporating the amount of influence on other acts into judging the quality of a band's work. It's good to measure their impact, but I don't know if it actually adds to an album's quality, at least speaking for me.

Besides, I think you could argue that a large chunk of alternative rock over the last 30 years has been markedly influenced, whether first or second-hand, by R.E.M. Nirvana's probably the most popular example of all.

No, I agree that it doesn't mean anything regarding quality. But I think when it comes to deciding the greatest American rock band of all time, influence on other artists has to play a part in that evaluation.

You may be right. I'm sure plenty of bands call REM an influence. Of course. But I don't hear it other artist (Nirvana especially) the way I hear Nirvana in others. But that could just be my own ignorance. I found REM a lot later than Nirvana. I found Nirvana in real time and lived through the aftermath. I didn't start getting into REM (beyond radio hits like It's the End of the World and Losing My Religion) until my mid-twenties. Could be that REM felt more derivative to me by then because I knew their influences better than I knew them.

durdencommatyler wrote:

digster wrote:All I can keep thinking is that R.E.M. did fifteen years and ten albums in a row, and none of them came in below "really good." Several are all-time classics. There's really no other band that comes to my mind with that consistency over that period of time.

I have no problem with folks putting them in the top spot. There are arguments to be made and it's hard not to love what they accomplished.

They just don't do for me what they do for many others. To me, REM has two GREAT albums, three really good albums, an three uneven albums, a terrible album, and an album I haven't heard. If I hold up their best five against Pearl Jam's best five, Pearl Jam comes out on top. In fact, PJ is about to release their tenth album, and I'd argue they haven't had one below "good", yet. And only one below "really good" maybe. Maybe.

By the end of their career I might put pj ahead of rem. But not yet, even though I like pj a bit more

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

digster wrote:All I can keep thinking is that R.E.M. did fifteen years and ten albums in a row, and none of them came in below "really good." Several are all-time classics. There's really no other band that comes to my mind with that consistency over that period of time.

I have no problem with folks putting them in the top spot. There are arguments to be made and it's hard not to love what they accomplished.

They just don't do for me what they do for many others. To me, REM has two GREAT albums, three really good albums, an three uneven albums, a terrible album, and an album I haven't heard. If I hold up their best five against Pearl Jam's best five, Pearl Jam comes out on top. In fact, PJ is about to release their tenth album, and I'd argue they haven't had one below "good", yet. And only one below "really good" maybe. Maybe.

By the end of their career I might put pj ahead of rem. But not yet, even though I like pj a bit more

Obviously, I definitely like Pearl Jam more. But, like I said, I have no problem with folks putting REM on top. It's not an unreasonable argument. I just disagree. It has everything to do with preference.

I thought it would be easy to come up with a ton of American bands better than REM but shit it's hard....

Okay, here's how I would rank REM's full catalog:

GREAT
1. Hi-Fi
2. Automatic

REALLY GOOD
3. Collapse Into Now
4. Up
5. Life's Rich Pageant

GOOD
6. Monster

UNEVEN
7. Green
8. Document
9. Out of Time
10. Fables

FORGETTABLE / NOT GOOD, BUT NOT BAD
11. Accelerate
12. Around the Sun

JUST BAD
13. Reveal

HAVEN'T HEARD THEM YET
14. Murmur
15. Reckoning

I don't think pitting number of great/good/okay/bad records against each other and then doing the math is how I'd assess something like this. Nirvana represented and defined a moment in time, which is no small feat, but I couldn't argue for them as the greatest American band of all-time any more than I could argue for the Sex Pistols as the greatest English band of all-time (stiffer competition over there, but still). While we got a few more albums out of Nirvana than we did out of the Pistols, I would still maintain that what we got to see of their growth as a band, and of Kurt as a songwriter, while impressive for the small amount of time it represented, simply wasn't substantive enough to put their body of work up against a group like REM's. If they win the title for Greatest American Band Ever, their victory comes with an asterisk. Stip is right; a lot of bands have two great records. In this conversation, longevity absolutely matters.

REM was around for 28 years and successfully weathered three distinct eras of career: their indie years on IRS, their Bill Berry years on Warner Bros., and their post-Berry years. During each era they were thrown curveballs that, despite which records you feel are their best, it's difficult to deny they handled with class and without ever sacrificing their artistic or personal principles. During those 28 years they demonstrated remarkable artistic growth without ever really violating the parameters of what they inherently were, even when what they inherently were literally became something different. Only in the very end did they look backwards instead of forwards, but now that we're able to see those as their last records, that look backwards has a different meaning--not a retreading of steps done in the name of self-doubt, but rather a final about-face at the end of the run, more like a marathon sprinter crossing the finish line and then turning around and see for the first time just how much ground he's covered. No other band mentioned so far in this thread has seen its career through to fruition this way, and no other band's body of work therefore feels anywhere near as complete. Nirvana shares this, but I also wouldn't underestimate their credibility in both mainstream and underground circles. A good way to measure true greatness is to look at bands that nobody can deny, and rarely do you find people denying REM.

For pretty significantly different reasons, I would say the only other band that I would feel comfortable including in this conversation would be the Grateful Dead (barring Aerosmith of course, but that had more to do with that sticker than anything else). Maybe Sonic Youth, though I wonder if they're just a little too far out there. Someday, maybe Wilco. I like the idea of including Pearl Jam but I think they're moving in the wrong direction.