Nominations for an 80s Albums That Rock Poll(inc indie/Alt,punk,metal,heavy/glam etc) CLOSES SUNDAY NIGHT 11:59 p.m. UK

the problem, i suppose is that once you've included, say, the cramps, the gun club and X, it becomes hard to justify excluding other bands who trade in rock americana. but personally, i can see the sense in putting those bands inside while keeping REM out. they may not rock harder according to your definition, but in their early days at least, they were rawer and wilder, more insistently aggressive and punk.

Are things like "Life and How to Live It" and "Fireplace" just not weird or dark in the right way?

I think I had the sense of R.E.M. having a sort of apocalyptic vision even before "It's the End of the World as We Know It," but that made it explicit. ("I'm Gonna DJ" did later, too, of course.) They used to close sets with it and on one later tour, probably '99 or so, they had this crazy light sculpture that was part of their set design. It was a bunch of iconographic images in lights and different images would light up throughout the set for different songs. Anyway, during "End of the World" all these images start flashing and it might sound obvious or something but it was genuinely one of the most palpably intense things I've ever seen.

Are things like "Life and How to Live It" and "Fireplace" just not weird or dark in the right way?

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 1:05 PM (22 minutes ago)

it's more a product of the overall tone of entire albums, stage presence & iconography, the manner in which the themes are approached, etc.

i mean, REM's basic approach to troublesome ideas is humanitarian concern. they don't give themselves over to the joy of annihilation.

there was a moment in the early 80s when the twee/neurotic stylings of REM and ... ran so counter to the mainstream notions of rock generally and masculinity specifically, that they scanned as "punk", and were imagined, somewhat ironically, as being more aggressive than they were.

This is interesting. How was e.g. Reckoning seen by mature listeners at the time? None of the antecedents for it seem like they should have been that unfamiliar. I remember hearing "So. Central Rain" and "Fall on Me" in 1989 and thinking they were kind of moody and arty but I was also 10 years old.

Are things like "Life and How to Live It" and "Fireplace" just not weird or dark in the right way?

these songs aren't weird or dark at all. the actual, physical sounds found on these songs are smooth, clean, bright, upbeat. I generally don't listen to lyrics, but in any event Michael Stipe's singing is likewise evenhanded and friendly and melodic. these are pop tunes built on a rock template. in the beginning of each tune, we get a little bit of lightly distorted guitar that quickly disappears once the songs are underway. rhythmically the socks technically rock, but even then not in a particularly aggressive fashion. R.E.M. never really bear down on a rhythm and push it. the songs have motion, but are never in any way chaotic. these tunes are quick and clean and jaunty. I'm not saying that they're bad, btw (although, again, I'm not a fan). Sonically, R.E.M. are content to make music that is occasionally upbeat and uptempo, but is never forceful in any way. in this way, the music feels a bit passive, even when the tempos are high.

the "songs" technically rock, not "socks"

there was a moment in the early 80s when the twee/neurotic stylings of REM and Beat Happening and the Feelies ran so counter to the mainstream notions of rock generally and masculinity specifically, that they scanned as "punk", and were imagined, somewhat ironically, as being more aggressive than they were.

― Hellhouse, Monday, August 20, 2012 12:22 PM (1 hour ago)

yeah, like sund4r, i question this. it's definitely true of beat happening, and that kind of subversion was an explicit part of their approach. otoh, don't remember any similar reaction to REM and the feelies, and they don't seem to have had a similar intent.

This is interesting. How was e.g. Reckoning seen by mature listeners at the time? None of the antecedents for it seem like they should have been that unfamiliar. I remember hearing "So. Central Rain" and "Fall on Me" in 1989 and thinking they were kind of moody and arty but I was also 10 years old.

I'm thinking more of the early- to mid-80s. I'm sure you've read accounts of the early days of many particular punk/postpunk scenes, when bands weren't so categorized, and the scene wasn't so fragmented and people would listen to just about anything as long as it was perceived as "punk" or "alternative" or whatever. Like, in the early 80s, you might buy a New Order record along with a Black Flag record and an R.E.M. record, and yet there was no perception of eclecticism. these bands were played on the same radio stations, performed at the same venues, and their records were found in the same sections in the same stores, and therefore it was easier to imagine an aesthetic continuity, even if it was only a vague, anti-mainstream sentiment.

i get your point now, and i think it's valid. beat happening were more extreme, but yeah, REM and the smiths were embraced not as "punk" exactly, but as an "intelligent alternative" to the then-mainstream conception of what rock music could/should be.

Oh, I totally get the "intelligent alternative" thing.

yeah, like sund4r, i question this. it's definitely true of beat happening, and that kind of subversion was an explicit part of their approach. otoh, don't remember any similar reaction to REM and the feelies, and they don't seem to have had a similar intent.

before the Internet, obviously, different scenes were genuinely different. I grew up in a relatively conservative, middle-class suburb, and even light fare like R.E.M. had quasi-"punk" cache, so to speak. I can see, though, how your experience might be very different. also, I think once Husker Du and the Replacements signed to the majors ('85), "underground" music became increasingly segmented.

yeah, i agree that they had quasi punk cachet, but i think it was more a product of their presumed intelligence than the subversive quality of their relative gentleness

though, sure, that too

yeah, i agree that they had quasi punk cachet, but i think it was more a product of their presumed intelligence than the subversive quality of their relative gentleness

even the "relative gentleness" was seen as being aggressively anti-jock, which translated into a countercultural ethos of sorts.

these songs aren't weird or dark at all.

Obviously, I don't agree. It feels to me like someone is telling me that Stravinsky is weird and dark and Chopin is not.

Also, if we're talking about weakness - and we seem to be, R.E.M. as "light fare" etc. - isn't something like early Swans inherently weak? Like a depiction of weakness is the actual point? They may be hitting the drums hard but it's like the last semi-violent outburst that you stumble into before you fall down and die.

even the "relative gentleness" was seen as being aggressively anti-jock, which translated into a countercultural ethos of sorts.

yeah, i agree w that. was a big part of the initial attraction for me, tbh.

Also, if we're talking about weakness - and we seem to be, R.E.M. as "light fare" etc. - isn't something like early Swans inherently weak? Like a depiction of weakness is the actual point? They may be hitting the drums hard but it's like the last semi-violent outburst that you stumble into before you fall down and die.

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 2:31 PM

yeah, but they're presenting weakness and self-negation in such an extreme fashion that they become deeply transgressive attacks. and the music is not just loud, but brutally violent. there's something odd about your unwillingness to acknowledge this.

What I'm unwilling to acknowledge is that it has anything to do with how much it rocks.

yeah, but "rocks" can be defined any number of ways. it's not a term with an absolute, unchanging definition. shouldn't be too hard to adapt to the definition at work here, i don't think, even if it runs counter to your own.

I don't think the qualification for this poll has anything to do with whether something rocks, because obviously many things that rock have been disqualified. I think there is a certain sensibility that the organizers are after, but saying that something "rocks" doesn't really describe it at all.

It's called "80s Albums That Rock Poll."

May sort this out: What does it mean for a piece of music to "rock"?

but "rocks" can be defined any number of ways.

Well, there's debate about it, sure, but obviously we don't have to leave it completely open. I saw Swans live once and would have thought it unusual if I'd have heard someone talking about how much it rocked afterwards.

I mean, "to rock" doesn't really have any technical meaning afaik (even in the way that "to swing" does) so I can't really get too worked up about that particular issue, even if I do think there are questions to be raised about for this poll.

That was mangled "... there are questions that could be raised about this poll"

Also, tbh, I've loved 80s REM since first hearing them at 10 but I've personally never thought of them as a hard-rocking band in any case so fixating on them in particular can seem a little curious.

like personally, for me, the term "rocks" should be reserved for upbeat, aggressive, and somewhat pop-minded stuff that falls somewhere along this line:

chuck berry/jerry lee lewis --> sonics/star club beatles --> ramones/dolls/motorhead --> nirvana/white stripes

like hitting hard, moving fast, getting people up on their feet, and wrecking the room in a more-or-less accessible fashion. not too light to cause damage, but not too heavy to maneuver quickly.

that definition definitely excludes dark & arty weirdness like swans, flowers of romance and this heat, but it also excludes a lot of superheavy and thrashy shit that seems far too harsh and generally uncatchy to really rock properly, imo. nor is it too friendly toward the kinder, gentler stuff tim is advocating for. but try to set my prejudices aside for this poll, cuz i'm not in the driver's seat.

It's called "80s Albums That Rock Poll."

FYI, the track poll is called "the most rockingest tracks of the 1980s". I can agree that R.E.M. are a rock band, but they are certainly not among "the most rockingest" bands of the 80s. Also, AG states in the opening that he's looking for albums/tracks at the "rockier end of indie/Alternative rock."

seriously, what is your opinion of R.E.M.? would you honestly say that they're one of the most rocking bands of the 80s? and do you just want the band to be included in the poll, or are you looking for recognition that they're a heavy rock band? what exactly are you looking for?

I'm looking for more nominations and participants!! haha

Enjoying the discussion though. It's interesting.

that he's looking for albums/tracks at the "rockier end of indie/Alternative rock."

Sure, but that's the very thing we've been debating and the discussion has encompassed many bands nominated.

Sure, but that's the very thing we've been debating and the discussion has encompassed many bands nominated.

you haven't answered the question. what is your opinion of R.E.M.?

some of these criteria of rock put 'radio free europe' well ahead of 'back in black'

i think that discussion may be more suited for the tracks poll.

lol

This discussion has made me realize that I actually think it's awesome that AG has made up his own genre and is polling it.

Nah that would put me in the same league as Chuck. I'm not worthy.

I can agree that the meaning of "rock" isn't self-evident or unchanging. you know, one of the ironies of this discussion is that many of the heavy "arty" bands like Sonic Youth and Swans did not consider themselves rock bands and in fact vehemently denied that they were such. iirc, a number of punk and postpunk bands explicitly claimed to be "anti-rock". again, this is a sort of tension in the poll between how bands were seen in their historical context and how they're viewed now. a lot of the discussion then, however, was wrapped up in the very tired and stereotypical rock cliches that were still being aggressively peddled by mainstream rock bands.

tracks poll has way more noms than albums poll btw.
I suggest you all look through your record/cd/mp3 collections and find stuff that you would want to vote for just to avoid "oh noone nominated...."

hellhouse please tell me who you previously posted as! i cant work it out.

Naw, I'm into it. And I vote to leave pop metal in.

3xpost

How about if I answer your second question, which was a little more specific?

would you honestly say that they're one of the most rocking bands of the 80s?

Occasionally, yes, but maybe not according to the way that you framed it - records where "our fondness for them has everything to do with how much they rock." That strikes me as a bit of a tall order. Not everyone's going to be voting for Motorhead or something and most of the records on the list add something else to the equation.

"hesher music" seems like a good enough proxy for rock that would comfortably exclude REM, if that's the goal.

tim im quite happy for rem's rockiest tracks to be nominated in the tracks poll. But none of the 'big' songs seem appropriate. But im sure there will be suitable 'deep cuts' that qualify. If they dont then others will point it out.

hesheris an american term not used here but doesn't it just mean metal? because this is not a metal poll.

i think there's definitely a metal leaning but i feel like a hesher's spiral-bound notebook would also have zeppelin, ac/dc logos on it in ball point pen along with some dragons or a barbarian with a mace.

It's kind of a metal poll in the Stairway to Hell way.

xpost

Definition of a 'rocking' band: One that might conceivably have done a "Johnny B Goode" cover version.

So, that even includes the Sex Pistols, by default.