REM Debate, Jim Carrey, Clinton, the Beatles & PSYCHODERELICT

[Marc/Carolyn Hurwitz <MHurwitz@compuserve.com>]

Leo:

>Nice try Carolyn, but considering that this gallant concession was tacked
on
at the end of your huge argument refuting all of mine and Mark's points<

Nah--I didn't refute Mark's points, only yours.  'Sides, I was just
having fun.

>I'd
say you're pulling the same gag my best friend often pulls on me when we
get
into a heated debate.  I make a point, then she blasts forth with a half
hour
barrage in response, but as I prepare to speak, she quickly ends with, "But
we're just going in circles so I don't want to talk about it anymore."  I
didn't buy it when she did it either.  The dealmaking comes before the
trial,
not after closing arguments.<

Ever see the dinosaur in TOY STORY?  "I don't like confrontations!"
Seriously, I just don't want either of us to get too heated about all
this....
it's only rock 'n' roll, after all.  (Now let's not get started on the
Stones.)  

>I would never mention Sting's horrifying solo stuff in the same breath
with
the Police's best work, and I'm not a huge Police fan, but despite their
short
lifespan The Police's best songs are far superior to anything REM did even
with their life-support longevity.<

I don't agree.  I love countless songs of REM's that I think are as
good as the Police's material, if different, including "Losing My
Religion" which Stipe has said was a response to "Every Breath
You Take".  Listen to the lyrics sometime, if you can force yourself.

>>The Pretenders

>Had two-and-a-half great albums and then fell apart.  Nope.

Two-and-a-half great albums is better than none, as in REM's case.<

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  REM has about a 90% track record with
its albums.  For a while, every release was an improvement over
the last, at least until DOCUMENT.  I agree MONSTER sucked,
but it's the only complete loser in the bunch.

>>Squeeze

>Singles band.  A great one, but still.

Again, quality versus quantity.  You don't need to be an album group to be
great.  Their songs are just better.  REM never wrote anything near as good
as
"Tempted".<

Get real!!  "Tempted" is my LEAST favorite Squeeze song.  I much prefer
"Pulling Mussels From A Shell", "Up The Junction", "Annie Get Your Gun",
"Cool For Cats"....well, anyway, you get the point.

>The Cure is spinning its wheels now, but they are one of the few New Wave
bands that knew how to play guitar and didn't put me in a coma with
mindnumbing synth droning.<

I do like some of the Cure's stuff, but Robert Smith's voice makes me
shudder in revulsion.  "Love Cats", "Let's Go To Bed", "Just Like
Heaven", and "Friday I'm In Love" are all pretty good, but that's only
four songs out of how many?

>>Peter Gabriel

>Not a band.  Damn great solo artist, tho.  

You know what I mean.  Band, solo artist; they're all musical entities. 
Lets
skip the semantics and get on with the battle.<

If you refer to my original sentence, I said REM was a great *band*.
There is a big difference, IMHO.

>Amazing how both his [Gabriel's] work and Genesis's improved >drastically
after he split.

I agree with the person who refuted this.  Gabriel's solo stuff is amazing
anyway (and he gave one of the best concert's I've ever seen), but the
Gabriel
Genesis was a much better band than the Collins version.  Compare "The Lamb
Lies Down On Broadway" with "ABACAB".  There IS no comparison, ABACAB
sounds
sophomoric against that old stuff.  Plus Gabriel's lyrics for Genesis were
the
best they ever had again.  Not as popular, but a far better incarnation.
Post-Gabriel Genesis was the group all the jocks and cheerleaders chanted
at
the Homecoming Game.  Big deal.<

Nope, nope, nope, nope.  I prefer intelligent, concise pop songs to long,
drawn-out elaborate musical suites.  This is merely a difference in tastes.
Afraid I prefer "Land Of Confusion" and "Abacab" to "Supper's Ready"
and "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway".  BTW, can you explain to
me what the hell those last two songs are *about*, please?  Always
been curious.  (Not that I know what "Abacab" is about, either. <g>)

>U2 was/is another incredibly erratic group in terms of >quality.  

Only after "Unforgettable Fire".  That and all before it is gold.<

UNFORGETTABLE FIRE gold?  No way!  "Elvis Presley and
America"?  Forget it.  "Bad" is great live, but sucks on the album.
"Pride" is the only cut that's worth hearing.

>WAR is dreck??  UNDER A BLOOD RED SKY is dreck??  We ARE on different
planets!<

WAR was great the first twenty times or so that I played it; then it
got too preachy for me.  SKY isn't bad; most of their stuff sounds
better live than in the studio.

>I grant the "dreckness" of U2's last two records (make it the last three
if
you like), but aside from "The End of The World" and "Radio Free Europe",
REM
has nothing BUT dreck.<

ACHTUNG BABY has a few numbers that aren't bad (and some that
are wretched, like "The Fly").  I disagree with the REM assessment
(natch).

>Ridiculous.  Their best work against U2's best is not a contest.  REM
never
wrote anything as good as "I Will Follow", "New Year's Day", or "Sunday
Bloody
Sunday" and U2 destroy them live.  Obnoxious baloney like "Shiny Happy
People"
and pretentious nonsense like "Losing My Religion" is no substitute for
good
songwriting.<

"Shiny Happy..." is ironic.  "Put it in the ground where the flowers grow."
What do you put in gardens?  Answer: manure.  Stipe knew damn well
that these were cliches; he was making fun of them!  As for "Losing...",
you really should check out the words.  They're a lot deeper than you
think.  Anyway, have you ever seen REM live?  I have, and they're
fantastic.  (Also saw U2 back w/JOSHUA TREE.  They were great, too.)

>Again with the hang up on singles bands.  A good song is a good song
however
it's packaged.<

Yes, but when it's surrounded by crappy songs, it tends to undermine
your argument that the group's a great band.

>The same goes for the longevity hangup.  Did you know that
after 15 plus years Quiet Riot still plays live?<

No, but I don't think they're recording new material, either.
Neither is the Who, and they're still touring.  (Hey, I actually
mentioned the Who!! <g>)

>Again, it comes down to the songs.  REM
never wrote anything as good as "Fortunate Son" or "Proud Mary" or
"Travelin
Band" or.... Creedence's list of 'Songs Better Than Anything By REM' is too
long and I've already used up way too much bandwidth.<

While liking those songs, I still disagree.  So we're at an impasse.

>Depends on the group, depends on the song.  Allman Brothers can sometimes
pull
it off.  I'd have to shoot myself if REM tried it.<

Don't worry; they have more sense than to bother.

>I'm glad you admit the influence, but again with the life span thing.  You
know Mozart barely lived to see 30 and they say he got some songs out.<

Well, in spite of my love for the Byrds' early work, I would hardly put
any of their songs in the "up there with Mozart" category.  Their biggest
hit was by Dylan.  And again, REM's had many more songs AS GREAT
AS the Byrds' stuff.

>Robert Johnson, the Father of the Blues (which would make him an influence
on REM and
every other Rock band whether they know it or not), only recorded thirty
songs
and he recorded them all in one session.  Talk about a short life span.  If
you want to know more about him ask Keith Richards; he's got a huge
portrait
of him hanging in his living room.  Again:  "Turn, Turn, Turn"<

Not by them, either.  So they were a great cover band.

>Stipe can sing?!?  That nasally whine?  Ugh!<

At least with him I can identify the melody line.  For the record,
he beat out Bono in a recent RS poll as to the better vocalist.

>Also, for better or worse Lou Reed WAS the Velvet
Underground.  "Heroin", "Rock N Roll", "Sweet Jane" were all his, and again
REM never came anywhere near that level of songwriting, and never will. 
And
his solo stuff, while erratic, still has more gems than anything by REM.<

Aren't you forgetting Nico?  She sang some great stuff, like "All
Tomorrow's
Parties", "Femme Fatale" and "I'll Be Your Mirror".  As far as Reed's solo
work, the only two songs I've heard by him that I've liked were "Walk On
The Wild Side" and "Dirty Boulevard".  Now that last *is* great.

>>I will get creamed for saying this, but if you take away Jimi's
>fantastic guitar playing (and Noel and Mitch's superb work as
>well), his songwriting is pretty weak.  

Bullshit.
"The Wind Cries Mary", "Manic Depression", "Bold As Love".
Bullshit.<

"Manic Depression" is good, but the other two are incredibly
weak lyrically.  I never have been fond of psychedelica.  Same
with "Purple Haze".  "Foxy Lady" is just sexist.

>Besides,  to "take away Jimi's fantastic guitar playing" is more than the
equivalent of taking away all of REM's instruments, their vocal chords and
their latest video director.<

So you're saying the Experience only existed for Hendrix's guitar work?
To quote you back, bullshit.  Hendrix cared about his *songs*.

>In terms of significance to rock music's
evolution, one Hendrix  guitar solo is worth more than REM's entire
catalog.
If REM never happened, rock music would be unaffected by the loss.  If
Hendrix
never happened, rock music wouldn't BE rock music.<

I disagree.  Without REM, modern rock wouldn't exist, and that would be
a helluva change.  Without Hendrix, we'd still have rock.  After all,
Townshend
could play pretty well, too, as well as Clapton, Beck, Page....

>The name was The Jimi Hendrix Experience and it was most definitely a
band.
One of the best ever.<

Granted.  But what about the Band of Gypsies?  Besides, ELECTRIC
LADYLAND was not an Experience album.

>On the Beatles you'll be happy to know that I'm a huge Beatles fan and so
won't jump into the fray about who's better.  I just read Paul McCartney's
autobiography and it's easily the best book on the Beatles I've ever read.<

Oh, uck.  Someday maybe I'll point out the dozens of errors in there.  Not
to mention that he used Albert Goldman as a source.  But I'm glad you
like the Fabs.

>Okay, I've said my longwinded piece.  Now I don't ever want to discuss any
of
this with you again, so you win and lets drop it.<

LOL!  Not so easy!

>I salute you Carolyn for fighting the good fight, and yeah, I thought Jim
Carrey probably deserved it too.<

Aw!!  In that case, I forgive everything else you've said.  I adore Carrey,
and I'm thankful that he's finally begun making serious films.

Mark:

>No, no...besides, he didn't lie to the Grand Jury (as anyone who has seen
the videotape could tell you), but only to the Paula Jones lawyers and
since that was ruled as irrelevant AND the legal definition of perjury is
'lying under oath about a RELEVANT matter' this means he did not commit
perjury.<

I'll concede the technical crap to make a point.  That man got up
there in front of the American people and said "I have never had sexual
relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky", and that was just a flat-out
fucking LIE!!  And I BELIEVED THE BASTARD!!  Now I can't believe a
single bloody thing he ever says.  I want him OUT.

>And there is NO case for obstruction, so...the GOP is wasting time
and money because they're big babies who cannot accept that any Democrat
can be President! And a better one than they can come up with, too!<

For the record, I'm a lifelong Democrat who also hates all the right-wing
Clinton haters in the GOP.  That still doesn't change the fact that I also
hate Clinton myself now and want him out of the White House.  But
anyway....

>I think I can use your "coming from another planet" theory here, because
only a modern, forward-thinker could see how clearly The Who are better
than The Beatles. The flat-Earthers would take the opposite view,
certainly. And the landing-fakers, too.<

Hah hah.  Cute. <g>

>REM was a great band, until MONSTER.<

Yeah, they lost it there.  But they've gotten it all back with UP.
Which, I guess, brings me back to "do"....

And just so this message will have SOME Who connection,
has anyone else out there heard the "music only" CD of
PSYCHODERELICT?  Is this still in print, and if not, what's
it worth?

--Carolyn
"They hurt me, all those lies, lies, la-la-la-la-la-la-lies...."