Props And Missives No. 23 – A Deeper Shade of Soul | Thoughts on R.E.M.

Propers to Ben at Deeper Shade of Soul for his recent post on R.E.M. and his always thoughtful commentary on what “soul” is all about. I was going to comment back to his post but found I had more to say than could be accommodated. So here are my thoughts on R.E.M., in particular, and “relevance,” in general.

Part One: R.E.Who?

His post reminded me of my first experience with R.E.M. I left small town America for college in the “big city” (Syracuse, New York) in 1980. I don’t recall exactly what was on my playlist at the time but it was probably a mix of Van Morrison, Weather Report and skinny-tie pop.

I was introduced to R.E.M. (specifically, “Murmur”) by a girl who lived on the dormitory floor below me (within the prison-like concrete walls of beautiful Kimmel Hall). Being from Boston (and a fan of WBCN), she was in touch with whatever genre it was that included R.E.M. (post-modern? new wave? jangle pop?). She also introduced me to Bowie’s “Scary Monsters” and Rockpile.

I’ve had plenty of musically thrilling experiences (Keith Jarrett at Carnegie Hall, Cheap Trick at the New York State Fair) but I don’t recall listening to these albums as one of those times. It was more like: hey, this stuff is kinda cool.

In his post, Ben reflects on his relationship with R.E.M. by saying:

“…maybe they weren’t as great as I made them out to be when I was a kid looking for my own sounds…”

For me, it was probably the other way around: they were better than I had the ability to understand at the time.

Part Two: Relevance

Also in this post, Ben says:

“…So I was a fan, at times a big one, but for me, there came to be something missing…”

In one of the comments (posted by someone named “anonymous”), it was said:

“…I think that what might have happened is that the band became more “personality’ driven versus “musical” and lost their relevence (sic) in the exchange…”

How exactly did a band that continued to play its instruments and write its songs become more personality driven than musical? The truth is that R.E.M. didn’t get less musical, they got musically different.

Back when it came out, I spent a lot of time with “Around The Sun”. Was it as innovative as “Murmur”? No. Was it as well-constructed as “Document”? Not a chance. It was flawed in some places, inconsistent in others. But, in the final analysis, it was VERY musical and possessed some truly beautiful moments. But, yes, it was markedly different than early albums.
And, exactly, how do we define “relevance”?

Does “relevance” mean that an artist influences a generation of artists that follow him? If that’s the case, then R.E.M. certainly was “relevant” when they recorded “Murmur”. Or does “relevance” have to do with how many people get to hear a record? Is a million-selling artist more relevant than a thousand-selling artist (or vice versa)? Did R.E.M. become relevant (or irrelevant) because, at one point, they sold a lot (or not a lot) of albums. Is an African artist with a limited sphere of influence more or less relevant than Johnny Clegg? Is a Portugese street musician more or less relevant than Cesaria Evora?

Part Three: Whose Ears?

The facts are this:

We get to like what we like when we like it.

We get to look back on the past and wonder “what was I thinking”

We get to listen again and think “well, it wasn’t that bad”

There is no expiration. We get to go back and discover what we missed.

We get to hope new albums are great.

We get to be disappointed when they’re not.

We get to say so, if we want.

There’s no limit; we can have as much music as we want.

All music is relevant if it makes something happen when it hits your ears.

R.E.M. – I Wanted To be Wrong (4MB, available one week)