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

yeah

'transgression' is such an overused idiot word in 2012, almost as bad as 'radical', but in the distant 1980s most of this music was, or seemingly wished to be transgressive

I wasn't asking the question. I was trying to frame things that were included/excluded based on your definition of the parameters. "Harshness" was the only quality that seemed like it might have some conceivable application in the case of Pixies/R.E.M. (rational and Dionysian did not seem to).

If indeed "harshness" is the determining factor, then it seemed to me that this it is, precisely, the absence of pop that makes it so. You claim the Pixies were more "corrosive" - I don't know if I agree.

"harshness" is more an aesthetic judgement than a quality per se. I'd settle for "intense" even though we're splitting hairs here. but you also have to examine the reasons why a band might seem more intense. bands that rock harder, that play their instruments more aggressively, vigorously, loudly and dynamically than other bands are going to seem more intense (or, to a pop fan, possibly harsher). intensity doesn't imply an absence of pop so much as it implies a commitment to rock at the very least equal to the commitment to pop. very simply, the Pixies rock harder than R.E.M. (though not by much, admittedly), and to a dedicated pop fan may seem harsher as a result. the Pixies are an interesting example, though, because I would say that they are as dedicated to pop as they are to rock, which is not the case for many of the bands on this list. imagining rock and pop occupying opposing corners on a sliding scale is helpful, and I think the Pixies are just a tad over the rock line, close to the center, while R.E.M. are perhaps an equal distance away from the center on the pop side of the scale. this abstraction is obviously a bit simplistic and YMMV.

and contenderizer re ar kane upthread, 69 is indeed probably a bit too somnolent and detached for inclusion here, but their early eps certainly qualify

'lollita' and 'sadomasochism is a must' are trying at being ~transgressive~, trying too hard perhaps

Naw, R.E.M. had a tougher rhythm section.

xp

which REM tracks should we be listening to here/

Naw, R.E.M. had a tougher rhythm section.

I'm not a fan of either band, tbh, but I don't think is true. R.E.M. are definitely lighter on guitars, and as a band, their dynamics are generally far more subdued. as I said, I think the Pixies rock harder than R.E.M., but not by a lot. if you genuinely think that R.E.M.'s rhythm section rocks harder, I don't have a major trump card to disprove this notion ("Gigantic", perhaps).

"Radio Free Europe," "Pretty Persuasion," "Second Guessing," "Little America," "Feeling Gravitys Pull," "Auctioneer," "Begin the Begin," "These Days," "Just a Touch," "Windout," "Finest Worksong," "Fireplace," etc.

There's a heaviness to the rhythm section (i.e., bass and drums and sometimes guitar too!) and a sort of feeling of playing in the pocket that comes from hard rock.

that plus close relation to a few related genres: heavy metal, hard rock, punk/hc, and a "rock & roll" tradition that runs from chuck berry up through the white stripes.

Again, Chuck Berry but not Buddy Holly, etc.

well yeah

"harshness" is more an aesthetic judgement than a quality per se.

where the early pixies stuff is concerned, "harshness" = suddenly shrieking really fucking loudly in the midst of what might otherwise pass for a pleasant indie pop song. this tactic aligns them with the weird, noisy, transgressive-aggressive, antipop sensibility that this poll seems organized around.

Chuck Berry but not Buddy Holly, etc.

i say yes cuz the implied line runs from chuck berry and jerry lee lewis to the ramones and motorhead

There are no subjects more transgressive than the apocalypse ("It's the End of the World as We Know It," "Fireplace").

haw!

right i am relistening to radio free europe, which is a nice song for sure

the rhythm section is insistent enough but absolutely nothing else about, everything is perfectly controlled and pellucid and good-spirited and clean-lined

"Radio Free Europe," "Pretty Persuasion," "Second Guessing," "Little America," "Feeling Gravitys Pull," "Auctioneer," "Begin the Begin," "These Days," "Just a Touch," "Windout," "Finest Worksong," "Fireplace," etc.

There's a heaviness to the rhythm section (i.e., bass and drums and sometimes guitar too!) and a sort of feeling of playing in the pocket that comes from hard rock.

I would characterize these tracks as light rock. they're spirited but not particularly loud or aggressive, and as such don't really have a place in a poll covering the most rocking tracks. the tempos and dynamics are rock-ish, but the guitars and vocals are pure pop. are you honestly suggesting that these tracks are among the most rocking tracks of the 80s? or simply that they deserve to be categorized as rock?

I'm saying that they have a heavier rhythm section than other things included in the poll.

where the early pixies stuff is concerned, "harshness" = suddenly shrieking really fucking loudly in the midst of what might otherwise pass for a pleasant indie pop song. this tactic aligns them with the weird, noisy, transgressive-aggressive, antipop sensibility that this poll seems organized around.

idk, "harshness" is too closely associated with distaste, which is why I prefer "intensity". those really fucking loud shrieks may sound harsh to Tim, but I usually find these episodes of noise to be invigorating. I think that we're probably on the same page w/r/t where the Pixies stand in relation to the rest of the bands in this poll.

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

I'm saying that they have a heavier rhythm section than other things included in the poll.

well, this may be true. and perhaps The Dream Syndicate should also be excluded, or REM should be included. the discussion is a bit pointless, though, because in a poll where people are voting for the most rocking tracks, no one IMO is realistically going to be voting for either. The REM/Dream Syndicate line is thin and arbitrary, admittedly, but if AG is going to draw a line, then any bands abutting this line are fodder for this discussion no matter where it's drawn.

I don't think we're being asked to vote for the most rocking tracks. I think we're being asked to vote for our favorite tracks where our fondness for them has something to do with how much they rock.

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

this is a major factor, but not certainly not the only one. and really, R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak. it's not as though R.E.M. have a commanding, legendary rhythm section and are being denied simply because their guitars and vocals are tepid. on occasion, R.E.M. can rock and put down a groove, but this is not the band's raison d'etre. R.E.M. make nice, hummable pop tunes that are occasionally animated enough to be called "rock", but this puts them, at best, at the margin of this poll.

hellhouse otm

lol haven't looked on this thread in a while and tim is still flogging his REM hobbyhorse

Well, I was making a different point this time...

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 7:36 PM (40 minutes ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUZ5VgcMY88

I don't think we're being asked to vote for the most rocking tracks. I think we're being asked to vote for our favorite tracks where our fondness for them has something to do with how much they rock.

I think in this particular case, we're being asked to find tracks where our fondness for them has everything to do with how much they rock. this is merely my understanding. I'm not barring R.E.M., and I'm not running the poll, so ultimately I can't say. but, again, I think that we're being asked for tracks and albums that we love precisely because we think they rock hard. I also think that part of the problem, at least for the older voters, is that 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. there may be a tension in this poll in terms of using the criteria of the 80s vs. using today's criteria to evaluate these bands (and IMO, the perception of these bands, outside of that particular historical context, has changed markedly, and they are no longer really seen as aggro).

R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak.

I look at the list and I see a lot of bands that were a lot less grounded in '70s rock than R.E.M. And I don't know what they might have been more grounded in. And when I see the Fall and lots of others, I think, "Gimme a break."

The Feelies "rocked" when they wanted to.

R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak.

I look at the list and I see a lot of bands that were a lot less grounded in '70s rock than R.E.M. And I don't know what they might have been more grounded in. And when I see the Fall and lots of others, I think, "Gimme a break."

the Fall? this is a huge plate of challops. they're well known for having an aggressive, driving rhythm section that lunges and lurches and swings. and regardless of R.E.M.'s 70s inspirations, the music they actually produced for the most part doesn't really rock. perhaps in a live setting, when the music is naturally louder and heavier, and the dynamics more intense, they actually rock. but the records they put out are fairly tame. I doubt anyone here has anything to say that will convince you, though.

The Feelies "rocked" when they wanted to.

true. but I'm generalizing about bands perceived as twee. I'm not really looking to hash it out over the Feelies.

fair enough. This whole thing is so absurd.

The Fall rocked harder when Simon Wolstencroft joined. Why? Because he was a better, more solid drummer. This was when they became more of a pop band.

the problem, tim, is that you seem to be using a fairly technical and traditional definition of rock music, and this poll seems to be centered more around a cluster of less traditional ideas and attitudes.

it's easy enough, i think, to assume that something unites the weird, dark, aggressive, outré, challenging and antipop strains of 80s rock in such a way that a comprehensible circle can be drawn around motley crue, the pixies, the cramps, the fall, this heat, voivod and the swans - while at the same time excluding REM, the feelies, bruce springsteen and the pretenders. the pixies are definitely borderine in that construction, but like hellhouse says, there will always be disputes on the borderland...

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.