Is R.E.M. underrated by new music nerds?


I've been in a R.E.M. phase in late 2018, they kept me going through the toughest period of my life. A lot of their stuff especially in their incredible 1987-1996 run means a lot to me and have been pivotal in growing my music taste but emotion aside I think quality-wise they were one of the greatest rock band of all time, if not one the best band. I actually think this is not a hot take.

What I think is an interesting thing to discuss is how R.E.M. are relevant to new audiences of my age (I'm 20 btw) like all the music nerds that grew on the Internet (RYM or /mucore) or the music channels or profiles on YouTube and Instagram that review or examine music.

I think that in this demographic area R.E.M. are underrated or more specifically they are put inside the categories of "Gen X bands" like U2 or similar. And i think it's a shame because they have one the best musical palettes of all time provided by really skilled musicians and an incredible and eclectic vocalist and songwriter like Michael Stipe. A band that even when they became globally famous they managed to stay coherent to their sound (until at least the early 90s) and political ethic. Their material should get more recognition among younger audiences like mine considering the huge influence they had on a lot of artist.

What do you think?

seola30

Showing 2 responses by moonwatcher

A shout out to Don Dixon's wife, Marti Jones, who should have been bigger. I read that the record label only had the money to push one artist and chose Tracy Chapman instead.  Nothing wrong with Tracy at all, but it shows how which artists become household names and which ones fall through the cracks is a crapshoot. 

I liked them from Murmur till Monster then sort of lost interest. If any of you haven't, check out Dead Letter Office. That's a really good album with some great covers that rise up to perhaps best the originals.  As an aside, I agree with Michael Stipe. Murmur was OK but Pylon's debut album sounded better.