72 replies to this topic

[welliwonder]

Pilgrimager, on 08 January 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

I wonder why they didn't announce it was the last album when it was released? Maybe they thought everyone would accuse them of saying that as a cynical promotional ploy.

They've explained many times that it had to be kept secret because many peoples jobs were affected etc.

[welliwonder]

High_Speed_Train, on 08 January 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

I never said "they made the whole CiN goodbye theme" that´s just your interpretation of my words. I´ve been saying from the begining: what if, what if, sorry to insist, if Collapse into Now had catapulted R.E.M. back into global stardom?

Since they had already devised a breakup plan, and they had the intention of going ahead with it (just didn´t communicate it to the fans and only to a few associates, but in a very secretive manner) could they have shelved or postponed the breakup and go on as a band for a few more years, probably releasing the final album and going on the very last farewell tour?

I never said YOU said there was a goodbye theme, I said THEY said there was, and I said I believe them and you obviously dont. Though i dont know why you wouldn't believe them, as they don't have a prolific record of bullshitting.

I don't know if you've heard any of the post split interviews? because they've explained themselves very clearly about why they kept the decision quiet ( peoples jobs at stake etc etc) and why they would never, ever have done a farewell tour ( 'mercenary' , 'not the kind of thing we do') Anyone who knows them would also know just how wrong the whole idea of a farewell tour would have been to them.

So again, no , I think you're completely wrong to think that by selling a few more records they'd go back on their plans to disband. How many more do you think it would take ?

Dont forget , CIN was successful as far as the band and most of their fans are concerned , and so your argument hinges purely on sales figures .

[High_Speed_Train]

welliwonder, on 09 January 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

I never said YOU said there was a goodbye theme, I said THEY said there was, and I said I believe them and you obviously dont. Though i dont know why you wouldn't believe them, as they don't have a prolific record of bullshitting.

welliwonder, thank you for your patience, we agree on a lot more things than it´s apparent, or a lot more things than my words may suggest. I believe the band when they said that Collapse into Now was intended as a farewell, no discussion there.

Our differences are in the picture that I have painted: Collapse into Now is the #1 bestseller of 2011. R.E.M. are more famous than they ever were. They decide not to disband.

My question to you now is, what would R.E.M. have done in that case? How do you think they would have reacted to this newly regained fame, suddenly all of the fans that abandoned them are back in the camp... What do you think they would have done?

I know you don´t agree with my thesis (that they wouldn´t have split) but I´m curious to hear what do you think could have happened.

You seem to believe that the act of selling more records is greedy and selfish, but the music industry is in such ailing state that a record selling thousands of copies is in fact a blessing to that large number of industries, suppliers, retailers, distributors... It´s a good thing for the economy.

welliwonder, on 09 January 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

I don't know if you've heard any of the post split interviews? because they've explained themselves very clearly about why they kept the decision quiet ( peoples jobs at stake etc etc) and why they would never, ever have done a farewell tour ( 'mercenary' , 'not the kind of thing we do') Anyone who knows them would also know just how wrong the whole idea of a farewell tour would have been to them.

Honestly I haven´t heard much of R.E.M. after September 21st. I was literally shocked the day of the announcement, I completely blocked all references to the band and didn´t want to see nor hear anything about them. They disappointed me when they split. So, the answer to this question is no, I didn´t follow much of those news, sorry.

Also let me know if this parallel is helpful in explaining my case: with the recent re-release of Achtung Baby, not that I was interested in that, but the point is, I heard or read a story that U2 were on the verge of collapse in the early nineties, but since "One" became a massive hit, they decided to stay together as a band.

[stipeeyes]

Caleb Kyzer, on 07 January 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

on the other hand, if they were already talking about disbanding on the accelerate tour, wouldn't they have known (or guessed) that the Mexico show was their last? but maybe at that point, even if they had decided to quit, they might not have known for sure if they would do any promo shows or tour for their last album. while it would've been great to see them (and see the CiN songs live), i'm kinda glad the way they did it. it was original.

That's part of what I was thinking.  I'm just glad that the last show I saw was a show I was completely satisfied with.  It sucks for any fans that were not happy with their last show.  Sometimes people have bad experiences at concerts.  Not because the band didn't sound good that night but because of people  bothering them, security being idiots,etc.  I'm glad my last show wasn't the New York show I went to because a good majority of that crowd seemed to not be into the show at all. Michael had even made a comment to someone sitting in the first row who had her hands over her ears.  A person who clearly should have stayed home that night.

Maybe it would be emotionally draining for the fans and the band knowing for sure its the last tour.  To quote All the Best.  You can't give it one more time and show the kids how to do it fine without doing one last kick ass tour.

[wagtail]

welliwonder, on 09 January 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Though i dont know why you wouldn't believe them, as they don't have a prolific record of bullshitting.

Really?  I think they have an extraordinary capacity for it.  I don't particularly have a problem with it, I think being able to bullshit may be a pre-requisite for longevity in the entertainment industry, but the idea that REM are this group of utterly sincere people who have had an honest engagement with their audience is one that I stopped buying into quite a few years ago.  To be honest, I think my enjoyment of the last album was due to the fact that for the first time in over 20 years, I was just listening to the new REM record...I wasn't listening to the new one from my favourite band who I held in such high esteem that they could never match my expectations.

I think the band are extremely pragmatic in business, and a profit based outcome, of course, is going to matter to them.  However, I don't agree that CiN being a huge financial success would have seen the continuation of REM.  Now that I've had time to reflect upon it, I think for most of the last decade, the chances of REM continuing on beyond the end of their contract were pretty minimal, and I think that because of how little effort they've made to change their business model - I respect their intelligence enough to think they would have been thinking about what was and wasn't working for them.

I think it is pretty audacious of them to try and spin the line about a 'farewell tour' being mercenary.....give me a break...."mercenary" ...what a word to use, ha!  I'd actually have a hell of a lot more respect for REM if they weren't always trying to convince us of how ethically driven they are.  Again, their professionalism and pragmatism has allowed them to create the kind of wealth where they can quietly go about doing great things in terms of promoting equality and social justice, and I respect them for that, but I don't like being introduced to the idea that the choice not to tour was about ethics.  This 'mercenary' bullshit kind of invites you to ponder the choices they have made:  Was it 'mercenary' to go into the studio in the mid-90's and make a record with the intention of making a record with the kind of sound that could be toured...did the profit motive have primacy then.....?..is it mercenary to interrupt the recording of a studio album to go out and tour on the release of a greatest hits.....did that decision favour profit over integrity...?   It's just a stupid place to go...it's surely always been a delicate balance in terms of the level of compromise involved, but at least in the past they didn't try to insult our intelligence with this, "we didn't want to exploit the fans" crap - ironically, it's the ultimate in self-indulgence to try and spin it like that.

[welliwonder]

wagtail, on 13 January 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Really?  I think they have an extraordinary capacity for it.  I don't particularly have a problem with it, I think being able to bullshit may be a pre-requisite for longevity in the entertainment industry, but the idea that REM are this group of utterly sincere people who have had an honest engagement with their audience is one that I stopped buying into quite a few years ago.  To be honest, I think my enjoyment of the last album was due to the fact that for the first time in over 20 years, I was just listening to the new REM record...I wasn't listening to the new one from my favourite band who I held in such high esteem that they could never match my expectations.

I think the band are extremely pragmatic in business, and a profit based outcome, of course, is going to matter to them.  However, I don't agree that CiN being a huge financial success would have seen the continuation of REM.  Now that I've had time to reflect upon it, I think for most of the last decade, the chances of REM continuing on beyond the end of their contract were pretty minimal, and I think that because of how little effort they've made to change their business model - I respect their intelligence enough to think they would have been thinking about what was and wasn't working for them.

I think it is pretty audacious of them to try and spin the line about a 'farewell tour' being mercenary.....give me a break...."mercenary" ...what a word to use, ha!  I'd actually have a hell of a lot more respect for REM if they weren't always trying to convince us of how ethically driven they are.  Again, their professionalism and pragmatism has allowed them to create the kind of wealth where they can quietly go about doing great things in terms of promoting equality and social justice, and I respect them for that, but I don't like being introduced to the idea that the choice not to tour was about ethics.  This 'mercenary' bullshit kind of invites you to ponder the choices they have made:  Was it 'mercenary' to go into the studio in the mid-90's and make a record with the intention of making a record with the kind of sound that could be toured...did the profit motive have primacy then.....?..is it mercenary to interrupt the recording of a studio album to go out and tour on the release of a greatest hits.....did that decision favour profit over integrity...?   It's just a stupid place to go...it's surely always been a delicate balance in terms of the level of compromise involved, but at least in the past they didn't try to insult our intelligence with this, "we didn't want to exploit the fans" crap - ironically, it's the ultimate in self-indulgence to try and spin it like that.

They could have made millions of dollars from a farewell tour , exploiting the fact that it would be the last time they would be seen, and yes, of course that would have been mercenary. I think you're being disingenuous saying they have an extraordinary capacity for bullshit - if I really thought that then I couldn't really follow them. Its the pop world and the whole business is bullshit to some extent, but I think given that context they're pretty good really.

As for recording a record in the mid 90's for a tour , I believe the motivation wasnt the money but wanting a rock show that would suit the stadiums they were selling out at the time , rather than playing the  acoustic stuff of the previous 2 records .You think they wrote Monster with a money motive? really? I thought it was a pretty radical change from the massive commercial success of Out of Time and Automatic. You would have thought that if money was the motive they could have released something abit more like those, and I bet there was pressure from the record company for more of the same.

I'm not trying to say they're saints at all , but I do know of the work they've done in their hometown , I do know how they've treated their staff for 30 yrs , and I do know they had a fantastic value fanclub for decades , and I also  know they turned down millions offered for advertisements. Just little examples that show me that whilst money is as important to them as it is to you or I, its not their prime motivation.

Its really not that outrageously pious to not want do have a crappy farewell tour  and plenty of bands would have felt the same.I doubt there will be a Radiohead farewell tour.I wouldnt be surprised if there was a U2 one though.

So what do you think the real reason for them not touring was ?

[wagtail]

welliwonder, on 14 January 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

They could have made millions of dollars from a farewell tour , exploiting the fact that it would be the last time they would be seen, and yes, of course that would have been mercenary. I think you're being disingenuous saying they have an extraordinary capacity for bullshit - if I really thought that then I couldn't really follow them. Its the pop world and the whole business is bullshit to some extent, but I think given that context they're pretty good really.

How is it that I'm being disingenuous...?  I might be being presumptuous - but that is kinda the opposite of being disingenuous.

You say that the pop industry and the business is bullshit, which is also what I kinda said in my post, so where is the argument here..?..that you don't think they bullshit as much as I think they bullshit, and I'm willing to cut them some slack for it because I don't think they could have survived and stayed sane without yielding to it as much as they did.

I think it's total bullshit to describe making money from a tour, farewell or otherwise, as mercenary...it's just a stupid thing to say, and it's stupid to say it because, like I said, it invites people to apply the same kind of language to all your enterprises.  For the record, I don't think the Monster tour was mercenary, I don't think the Best of tour was mercenary -  making money from giving people a good time at a gig is not mercenary - it wasn't then and it wouldn't have been now.

Regardless, they wouldn't have needed to frame it as a farewell tour, they simply could have toured the album without making a breakup announcement and then said goodbye and the only people who would have been disappointed by that are actually the 'mercenary' types who needed the extra motivation of 'last chance to see' in order to get off their arses and get to a gig.  I'm not saying they should have toured, but if they had wanted to, they had an option in regards to whether to make it known that it was their last if they were genuinely concerned about a tour being exploitative.

Before the breakup announcement Mills also said that they didn't tour because they thought the album was strong enough to stand on it's own and didn't need a tour to promote it.....so at least one of his justifications is bullshit.  Stipe initially said he didn't want to be singing knowing it was the last time he would sing a particular song and I respect him for offering such a personal reason and not trying to present it as if they didn't want to exploit fans.  He later started talking about it being mercenary too.......maybe sometimes bullshit is just easier.

welliwonder, on 14 January 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

I'm not trying to say they're saints at all , but I do know of the work they've done in their hometown , I do know how they've treated their staff for 30 yrs , and I do know they had a fantastic value fanclub for decades , and I also know they turned down millions offered for advertisements. Just little examples that show me that whilst money is as important to them as it is to you or I, its not their prime motivation.

And I'm not trying to say they are money hungry arseholes.  You seem determined to read a lot more negativity into some of the comments than is actually there.  I said I respected the way they quietly lend their voice, money and energy to social justice issues.   I've certainly never questioned the integrity of their fan club, I think I've been pretty vocal in my appreciation for it actually, and I've definitely never suggested they are not ethical employers.  It's annoying to have to clarify that - as if I had ever made any suggestion to the contrary.   When someone uses the word mercenary they are the ones raising the notion that profit could potentially be a prime motivation, not me.

welliwonder, on 14 January 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

So what do you think the real reason for them not touring was ?

I dunno, I think it's probably a combination of a whole bunch of factors, both personal and practical.  On a practical level, I think there would have been a degree of financial risk, because the economic climate means the level of peoples discretionary spending is fairly low.   I think maybe Michael might have been starting to have some self-doubt about his voice holding out - I remember an interview during the Accelerate tour where he was having a really bad night, and was extremely grumpy with the set-list that Peter had written because there were a whole bunch of fast songs at the start, so yeah maybe some fear of failure on his part.  Mostly I just think that when they contemplated the possibility it just seemed like drudgery.   Is that too simplistic?

[Remixomatosys]

I agree. They didn't tour because at least one of them didn't want to.
Then they probably decided to spend the "mercenary" argument, which works well with the fans.
They just didn't want to be r.e.m. anymore, and this is evident when I listen to Collapse into now: despite having a great potential, it seems like the album was done against their own will (i.e.: half baked songs, lyrics such as discoverer, walk it back, everyday is yours to win).
Even Ethan, in one of the threads about the breakup (can't remember which one), said that the band didn't find it interesting anymore.
The thing, anyway, is: R.e.m. made it clear long ago, they're part lies, part heart, part truth, part garbage, and we should know this very well. As it's been aknowledged by themselves, there's no point in taking them so seriously.
On the other hand, with that premise in mind, there's a lot to learn from them

[Southern Gothic NC]

Pilgrimager, on 05 January 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Most bands would say #5 on Billboard made it a success.

Awww...

[welliwonder]

wagtail, on 14 January 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

I think it's total bullshit to describe making money from a tour, farewell or otherwise, as mercenary...it's just a stupid thing to say,

We're only talking about 'farewell' tours here ,not  tours in general .

I dont think general touring and selling music is mercenary , I think thats their business and their living which they generally went about pretty ethically. I dont think their business is in tacky goodbye shows designed to capitalise on the fact its their last, just so they can sell more tickets.


And whilst I obviously misunderstood the word disingenuos   , I still think saying they had an 'extraordinary capacity for bullshit ' was a tad over the top.

I only brought up the staff , advertising and hometown stuff to put in context how they're fairly unusual in the pop business for turning down money for ethical reasons- and it follows that a 'farewell' tour , ie selling more tickets and making it all the more attractive to punters purely on the 'farewell' aspect, would be just not in keeping with that.

Its completely different to selling cd's , touring to promote them etc etc because thats their job, their living , and their contract for that matter .

And you answered the point for me when you say they probably didnt tour because of the drudgery , and I agree with you there , so if they'd gone out on tour despite the drudgery , simply to make more cash , then yes , it would have been what Mills described as mercenary.

[stipeeyes]

Even if they did give a farewell tour I don't think they would have sold a whole lot more tickets than they have on past tours. Maybe more hardcore fans who usually do not travel would have decided to travel for more shows but it wouldn't be sell out dates in every city.  That ended after the Monster Tour.   R.E.M. never used a big corporate company to promote their tickets.  So not every casual fan knows they are playing a show in their own city unless they check the band or concert venue's site.

[wagtail]

welliwonder, on 15 January 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

And whilst I obviously misunderstood the word disingenuos   , I still think saying they had an 'extraordinary capacity for bullshit ' was a tad over the top.

A tad over the top..?  Sure, I never said I didn't also have an extraordinary capacity for bullshit....heh...I think my record here speaks for itself really.  

Perhaps we also have different understandings of bullshit too.  I don't mean they contrive lies, just that they got in the habit of trying to spin a positive angle, and then they retrospectively concede that things weren't all that rosy.  [The ATS to Accelerate period particularly].  Like I said, I don't really have a problem with it, but I think they took themselves bit too seriously by feeling a need to spin it that way.  I also think it underestimates their audience - I dunno about others, but I really don't need to be convinced that REM are good and decent people, I think it's a given really, and pushing only the positive set up some pretty unrealistic expectations.

[MurmursAdministrator]

High_Speed_Train, on 04 January 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

I now believe that if Collapse into Now had been a success, R.E.M. would still be around. Warner would still need them to appear in press conferences, television interviews, because Warner would be making money from the sale of the hottest album of the year. UBerlin would rule the airwaves, no sight of Adele. The band wouldn´t hesitate to renew their contract.

But only, only if Collapse into Now had been successful, if more units of it had sold, and if it had done better than that #5 spot on the Billboard list. The band´s member differences would have disappeared, gone away, because only success heals everything... Only if it had been succesful.

REM did everything in their power (nearly) to ensure it wouldn't be a hit, so this argument holds no weight. They went out as they came in: subject to no "rules" of any record business but their own.

Would I have wanted them to tour, do press, etc? Sure. They did the video project, the remix thing, and it was fun. We had more planned but there was no budget from it.

REM looked to their label for support and up until they end they had it, even after the regime change last fall.