72 replies to this topic

[Colinzeal]

stipeeyes, on 05 January 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I also disagree.  These guys really don't care about album sales. Sure they might feel proud and happy that an album sells 10 million copies but I'm sure they never expect them too.  No artist should expect them too.  Collapse sold 142,000 in the States.  142,000 people is a lot of people.  The best albums to me are always ones that do not sell tons of copies.

I disagree, if the band had never had 10 million album sales I would imagine they would not be so bothered about their ever decreasing popularity. When you hit that hieight and with each subsequent year your popularity continues to dwindle it can be hard to take. As I mentioned before the Twickenham and Cardiff gigs on the Accelerate tour were a big blow to the band and Mike Mentioned this in an interview. I believe the dwindling of album sales, poorer record sales and a total lack of critical acclaim in recent years played  a huge part in the band calling it a day. I reckon Michael in particular would struggle with their declining fan base and audience for the band.

[fanfan]

I believe that dwindling popularity had to do with it. I remember in 2008 at the Luxemburg gig Michael asked the audience who was a teenager, and there were very few. The band must have been aware of the fact that few young fans were interested in R.E.M. and came to the shows.

(Having said that, I took my teenage niece to the Oberhausen show and she loved it and later said she would love to see another R.E.M. show (which is not going to happen). She recently said she was really sad and almost cried when she heard the news that R.E.M. had disbanded.)

[DrinkTheElixir]

thorn plucker, on 05 January 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

the truth?  i think they announced their retirement because of everything that was happening here, at murmurs.com, that day.

http://www.murmurs.c...rk/page__st__80

i think that they may have discussed their options up until that point - but i don't think that they had REALLY planned to retire.

(or at least not on that very specific day)

Yeah. R.E.M's future hinged on your threads.  Daily they would paw through them, looking for a sign to end it all and fade into their Autumn years - taking up hobbies such as wood whittling, felting, the ancient art of Bonsai and finger knitting.  Just waiting, hovering over threads in the Lifestyle forum for 'the sign'.

Forever more, the days that went into constructing that thread will be known as 'The time that Jodi broke R.E.M'

[vplus]

While, yes, we will never really know, I am going to agree with the thesis here. Maybe. Yeah they say they decided a couple years prior that this was going to be the end. BUT - what stands out to me is Peter lamenting that he doesn't want to be a greatest hits band, like the rolling stones, nobody caring about their new material..I think if Collapse Into Now had been a big commercial and critical success it might have made them reconsider.  I feel like it was a blow to them that this album, their best since hi-fi (if not earlier), in their own eyes <and mine!> was received largely with a shrug.

[Caleb Kyzer]

i might could agree that, if Accelerate had sold really well, maybe they would have considered staying together.  but with the end of the Warners' contract, interests in other things, and just getting older, i think that once they decided to quit and make CiN their farewell album, there was no turning back.  that would be like the umpteenth Eagles' "farewell" tour or any other band that says, "this is it," and then comes back for another album or tour.  and that, i can't see REM doing.  going out with a platinum album would have been a big plus, but i think they were very satisfied w/ the album (and i know a lot of us are too).  maybe it's still too early for them to bash some of CiN like they did of Around the Sun, as it seems there often their own biggest critics (well, maybe not on Murmurs...).  i know i was very critical of the lyrics at first, but even before knowing it was their last, it had grown on me a lot, and now i consider it one of their best.  and i think it also adds to their legacy that they never played their final songs in concert.  we're left guessing what they would have sounded like live, and to me, that's sort of a tie-in to their early days, when new songs and covers were added almost nightly, and the lyrics kept everyone wondering.  30 years later and the lyrics are much more understandable and printed out in the CD sleee, but now we'll never know what the live versions would have been like.

on a different note, i really find it silly when adults start insulting each other here over the dumbest things, especially opinions about a rock band.  granted, it may be your favorite band, as REM were mine, but it's still nothing to get worked up over like it's a political debate or something that actually "means" (as in life or death) something in the world.

[Remixomatosys]

I think that many factors went into the decision to call it a day.
One of them, without a doubt, is the decreasing popularity, as made clear by the members of the band (i.e.: what Mike said about Twickenham and Cardiff shows).
R.E.M. had a new peak of popularity when Accelerate came out, at least in the USA, but they haven't been able to sell as much copies as Around the sun worldwide, even if the former has been universally aknowledged as their worst album, the latter being hailed as a return to form by everyone.
Anyway, I think that we should remember that r.e.m. sold about 4 million copies of around the sun and about 2 million copies of accelerate (correct me if I'm wrong), which isn't exactly a bad result.
The only r.e.m. album that sold poorly is their last one (in my opinion, a very good album, but maybe the worst in their catalogue): how many copies, maybe around 5-600.000 worldwide ?

[Caleb Kyzer]

"I think that many factors went into the decision to call it a day.
One of them, without a doubt, is the decreasing popularity, as made clear by the members of the band (i.e.: what Mike said about Twickenham and Cardiff shows)."

what did Mills say?  must have missed that interview.

[stipeeyes]

Some of the comments on here may force someone to drink.

High Speed Train but your theories are making very little sense.

[Remixomatosys]

Caleb Kyzer, on 06 January 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

what did Mills say?  must have missed that interview.

He basically said that the fact that they didn't sell so many tickets hurt them

[Caleb Kyzer]

is that where they had to "downsize" to smaller venues?  if so, i guess that's bad for a profit (ticket sales), but better for the fans there, depending on the place.  i would prefer a packed smaller venue as opposed to a half-empty stadium.  but who's expecting REM to fill stadiums now (then) like U2?  i'm just bummed they didn't do mtv unplugged 3.0 w/ the Cin songs, or maybe that show is totally dead...

[High_Speed_Train]

stipeeyes, on 06 January 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

<div>Some of the comments on here may force someone to drink.</div>
<div> </div>
<p> High Speed Train but your theories are making very little sense.</p>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>

This post is making very little sense.

[stipeeyes]

I saw R.E.M. at what used to be the Fleet Center in Boston on the 04 tour and the entire second level was empty.  So why not play a place that holds 6000 people so every seat will be filled up.  I loved the two theater shows I saw in Chicago both were sold out.  It's nice not seeing empty seats.
I always wished the guys would have done some acoustic shows like the Unplugged ones. Michael has a great voice to sing that way.

[High_Speed_Train]

stipeeyes, on 06 January 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Some of the comments on here may force someone to drink.

High Speed Train but your theories are making very little sense.

I'm not going to sound like other people here on murmurs who pretentiously or authoritatively say "read the posts", but take a look at some at what's been posted above, a few people are actually sympathetic to the theory (at least part of it) and I'm not even calling it a theory but you are. I'm taking this opportunity to reiterate some of my initial words: "only success heals everything".

And when you say that the thread here "may force someone to drink" are you referring to those people who are using improper language? Or to those who, like myself, are still reckoning the loss of the band without coming to terms with it?

[Caleb Kyzer]

but what is success?  i think some of REM's best songs are the ones that are out on the edge, experimental, not radio-friendly, etc. e-bow, country feedback, blue (a remix of those 2), world leader pretend, to name a few off the top of my head.  yes, they wrote lots of catchy, jangly guitar songs, but with the exception of what basically makes up "part lies," a lot of their songs, and the albums they're on, seem too "out there" to be commercially successful.  didn't "murmur" beat out "thriller" for album of the year, but how many did it sell?  and it's still considered one of their best.

[High_Speed_Train]

Caleb Kyzer, on 06 January 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

but what is success?

I hope this clarifies: if Collapse into Now had dominated the music charts, if it had stayed on top of them for several weeks, to the point where Warner wouldn't want to let R.E.M. go (because they'd be providing a good cash flow with those album sales, downloads) then Michael Stipe, Mike Mills and Peter Buck would have reconsidered the decision to call it a day. They'd still be relevant, on top of their game and commercially succesful. The no tour decision would have been revised.

The problem is Collapse into Now was sluggish, it just confirmed the sentiment that the guys were approaching retirement age and that they should make use of the "skill" of "when to leave a party".

Here's an example, if you were at a job, and you were enjoying the highest salary of your life, would you leave this dream job with which you are happy and fulfilled as a person?

[Caleb Kyzer]

i honestly don't follow the charts, but how long do Bieber or Lady Gaga (or whoever's there) stay on the top?  i think REM were wise enough to know when to "leave the party," and so they had already come to grips with not being commercially successful.  and even if the album had done well, i would think it would have been too late to throw together any worthwhile tour.  and that's what they've said they didn't want: a farewell tour.   and i think, at some point, anyone would leave a dream job and dream salary just to try other things or just take it easy.  it's not like they don't have lots of money, and hopefully they'll manage it well so they won't have to come out of retirement in 10 years and do a "REMember Tour" or something...

[stipeeyes]

Some people don't believe the guys when they say we will never reunite or play live together again.   They are not believed because a lot of bands who broke up swore they would not reunite and they did.  People keep calling it a retirement.  Peter and Mike are not giving up their music careers.  And Michael will still have his art career.

Michael had said he couldn't bare knowing that a certain city would be the last time he sang Man on the Moon.  His comment really didn't make that much sense because  obviously he does know the last time he sang that song live.

[Driver Nate]

I think Stipe meant that comment in the sense of a farewell tour in general. It seems that people have forgotten but when 10,000 Maniacs toured for the last time with Natalie Merchant in 1993 they also knew it would be their last tour, at least with Natalie as the frontperson. Even though they knew she would be leaving 10,000 Maniacs for a solo career following that tour they didn't make a big hubbub about it being their last hurrah. I only got to see them twice (the first time was when they opened for R.E.M. on the Work tour in '87) so I'm just thankful that I got to see them at all.

[High_Speed_Train]

stipeeyes, on 06 January 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Michael had said he couldn't bare knowing that a certain city would be the last time he sang Man on the Moon.  His comment really didn't make that much sense because  obviously he does know the last time he sang that song live.

My brother saw (or heard) that interview and he told me about it. Since I no longer follow any kind of televised or radio newscasts (for various reasons) I never caught that interview but know that it exists because my brother mentioned it.

My brother said that after that interview he now wants to listen to Man on the Moon, he has never heard it, he is curious what is sounds like. I should lend him a copy of Automatic, although he's now living in another city.

[Sweden]

High_Speed_Train, on 06 January 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I should lend him a copy of Automatic, although he's now living in another city.

Doesn't sending him a link to any oneline version of the song (or the album) seem slightly easier than shipping of a ophysical CD?