5 ms·

>> cringe-y activism, That subjectivity depends on what side of the political spectrum you fall. >> starfucker galaxy eyeroll Love/Corgan are still trying t

>> cringe-y activism, That subjectivity depends on what side of the political spectrum you fall. >> starfucker galaxy eyeroll Love/Corgan are still trying to ride their 15-mintues TO THIS DAY. Love is like a venereal disease, she just keeps coming back. And Corgan groomed some teen-aged fan to be his bride and is currently performing 7 hour meditation synthloop pieces to select audiences. Where's Stipe? Off being a normal human. >> meeting [grunge] on its own turf" Uh, when did REM say this?

tptacek 2y ago
I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative; in fact, a lot like Morrissey's activism, except Morrissey put his money where his mouth was (more's the pity for all the rest of us). I think of REM and immediately flash back to a high school friend that had "DIRECT" "PEACE" "NOW" "REM" buttons on her coat, and presumably no idea what those words actually meant (except for the REM bit) --- much like Stipe himself. I'm not saying Stipe is morally equivalent to Corgan (though: be careful how much research you do here). I'm saying that, in the grim span from "Out of Time" to "Monster", Stipe was approximately as authentic as Corgan, and was a social scenester in the same way. It alarms me to realize that Corgan was a more formally interesting songwriter in that period than Stipe was. REM didn't say they met grunge on its own turf; the article did. But I vividly remember the launch of Monster, and it was in fact an answer to grunge. The author of this piece is not making that up. I think REM's first couple records (and, probably, Automatic) are basically unimpeachable. I'm not cynically dunking on REM.
- bsder 2y ago
  > I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative I don't think it's performative, but it was definitely a later-stage add-on. The blame for that (positive or negative) falls squarely on Natalie Merchant.
- sosogroovy 2y ago
  >> It alarms me to realize that Corgan was a more formally interesting songwriter in that period than Stipe was. "formally interesting". I'm a native English speaker and composer and don't understand your phrasing. >> I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative; I disagree, but it entirely rests on what one person's definition of "cringey" is. I think your awkward attempts at sounding intellectual are alarmingly cringey and less formally interesting.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Something is formally interesting when it varies a basic aspect of the genre. A song that was one long verse with no chorus would be formally interesting. Throbbing Gristle was formally innovative in exploring noise rock and creating "industrial" music. Kid A was a formally interesting British rock album (to the point of alienating fans). The Flaming Lips made an album delivered on 4 CDs that you'd queue up and play simultaneously, so that the minute differences in timing would ensure no listen was precisely the same. Formally interesting (also: not very good). By 1993, neither REM nor (obviously) The Smashing Pumpkins were formally interesting bands. But REM would go on to make the same album, just with fewer and fewer hooks. Adore, on the other hand, was the Pumpkins Kid A, a transition from "Shopping Mall Shoegazer" to gothy electronic (it gives me no pleasure to report that the album predates Kid A by 2 years, but may have been expedited by Corgan's hair loss). It wasn't, like, a great album, because the Pumpkins are not Radiohead. But it was a departure, both from their previous catalog and from what was playing on the radio at the time. (I reassure myself by telling myself that both Radiohead and the Smashing Pumpkins stole this musical shift from Bjork). An aside: I think you will in the future find that dunks work better when you don't precede them by saying out loud "I don't know what the words in this dunk mean".

tptacek 2y ago

I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative; in fact, a lot like Morrissey's activism, except Morrissey put his money where his mouth was (more's the pity for all the rest of us). I think of REM and immediately flash back to a high school friend that had "DIRECT" "PEACE" "NOW" "REM" buttons on her coat, and presumably no idea what those words actually meant (except for the REM bit) --- much like Stipe himself. I'm not saying Stipe is morally equivalent to Corgan (though: be careful how much research you do here). I'm saying that, in the grim span from "Out of Time" to "Monster", Stipe was approximately as authentic as Corgan, and was a social scenester in the same way. It alarms me to realize that Corgan was a more formally interesting songwriter in that period than Stipe was. REM didn't say they met grunge on its own turf; the article did. But I vividly remember the launch of Monster, and it was in fact an answer to grunge. The author of this piece is not making that up. I think REM's first couple records (and, probably, Automatic) are basically unimpeachable. I'm not cynically dunking on REM.

bsder 2y ago
> I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative I don't think it's performative, but it was definitely a later-stage add-on. The blame for that (positive or negative) falls squarely on Natalie Merchant.
sosogroovy 2y ago
>> It alarms me to realize that Corgan was a more formally interesting songwriter in that period than Stipe was. "formally interesting". I'm a native English speaker and composer and don't understand your phrasing. >> I'm on REM's side of the political spectrum, and have always found Stipe's activism to be performative; I disagree, but it entirely rests on what one person's definition of "cringey" is. I think your awkward attempts at sounding intellectual are alarmingly cringey and less formally interesting.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Something is formally interesting when it varies a basic aspect of the genre. A song that was one long verse with no chorus would be formally interesting. Throbbing Gristle was formally innovative in exploring noise rock and creating "industrial" music. Kid A was a formally interesting British rock album (to the point of alienating fans). The Flaming Lips made an album delivered on 4 CDs that you'd queue up and play simultaneously, so that the minute differences in timing would ensure no listen was precisely the same. Formally interesting (also: not very good). By 1993, neither REM nor (obviously) The Smashing Pumpkins were formally interesting bands. But REM would go on to make the same album, just with fewer and fewer hooks. Adore, on the other hand, was the Pumpkins Kid A, a transition from "Shopping Mall Shoegazer" to gothy electronic (it gives me no pleasure to report that the album predates Kid A by 2 years, but may have been expedited by Corgan's hair loss). It wasn't, like, a great album, because the Pumpkins are not Radiohead. But it was a departure, both from their previous catalog and from what was playing on the radio at the time. (I reassure myself by telling myself that both Radiohead and the Smashing Pumpkins stole this musical shift from Bjork). An aside: I think you will in the future find that dunks work better when you don't precede them by saying out loud "I don't know what the words in this dunk mean".