Taking Sides: ACHTUNG BABY by U2 VS. MONSTER by R.E.M

Er....I mentioned it about nine posts before you.

It has nothing to do with 'dance beats' per se. They weren't trying to be a 'dance' band. NIN and U2 have nothing whatever to do with one another.

Monster was a completely different deal: R.E.M. had helped to create an alternative radio sound, and then become wussified by comparison to their own genealogical descendents (like, say, Live - ugh). And Monster was a big rock-n-roll dildo they could wave around to say, "We did this first, we own this sound, even though in the last album there's a picture of Michael dressed like a consumptive monk." The whole thing is either undermined or greatly improved by the presence of really soulful, queenie songs ("Crush," "Strange Currencies," and "Tongue," which is beautiful, and "Let Me In," which if you've heard it live is an incredible song).

So I say that they are not to be compared, though I like Monster better because I think it's strong all the way through, whereas AB is a string of singles with a clunky ending. If I were *really* to compare 'reinvention' albums I would compare Green with Achtung, Baby, in which case U2 wins hands down, or I'd compare All That You Can't Leave Behind with Around the Sun--the mediocre, geriatric, let's-recapture-our-old-sound records.

in my defense it was a three word blurb in a long ass page

very easy to miss

Mark: Are you implying that Zooropa wasn't as good as Achtung Baby? Because IIRC I liked it much better. The title track, "Numb", and maybe even "Lemon" count among the handful of U2 songs that have made any connection at all for me, at least as far as my memory from 10 yrs ago goes.

The only reason people are like U2=dance is because of the hype around "Pop," which also wasn't a dance record except in the most token fashion ("Mofo" and remixes). Maybe the basic story: U2 pre-1991=fascinated with America and American sounds. U2 post-1991=fascinated with Europe and European sounds?

Now I'm listening to the Dave Matthews Band. There's something to be said for them, really.

(Aargh that "hike up your skirt a little more and show your world to me" line!)

Jesus Jones, definitely. The number one reaction among friends at the time when "The Fly" came out = "Why are they sounding like Jesus Jones?" Then "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Enter Sandman" would come on the radio next.

The euro/baggy/dance-rock/etc. bands (who were a small minority of the rock bands anywhere near the charts in the early 90's) started sounding less like rock and more like Republica as the decade wore on, and U2 were no exception.

Also, it's silly to say that "Zooropa" had "Lemon" and "Numb" on it but the real heart of the album was someplace else and therefore it wasn't a dance album. The fact that the two songs I mentioned were the singles makes it fairly clear how U2 wanted to be perceived at that time.

Im not going to get into which was a bigger departure - both can be seen as huge and miniscule in different ways. oh my god, REM with fuzz? wtf?" and "so they use fuzz now, but the songs are still the same really. Strange Currencies is basically Everybody Hurts Part II!"

but man, achtung is mostly great songs. Classic. Arms around the world and One are rubbish, but the rest are various levels of greatness. And I have to say that i think So Cruel is the best U2 song *ever*.

and i fucking hate U2.

This is my Achtung Baby story: I bought it in 1993. I can't remember why -- it might have been that I thought the "Even Better than the Real Thing" video was cool. I listened to it obsessively for three years, loved it, memorized it, played it until the tape wore through, etc. Followed it to the rest of U2's canon, still like it better than any other album they made. Listened to it yesterday and was pleased all over again.

This is my Monster story: I bought it when it came out in 1994. Listened to it a few times. Liked "Crush with Eyeliner," and, er, that's the only song I remember more than the chorus of. Left it in my childhood bedroom when I went to college in 1996; have never had an urge to recover it or listen to it again.

So Achtung wins for me.

true. great video.

Two bands approaching the same sound from different directions.

"As if this mattered anymore. Eno's a whore."

hahahaha!

I just got Achtung Baby a few months ago, after many many years of generally dismissing U2 (although I always liked "Discotheque" and one or two other things). It's rapidly become one of my favorite listens, to the point where I fear I may have to give it the victory here, and I'm speaking as a longtime apologist for Monster. The comparison between the two unfortunately brings the flaws of REM's record into focus. What makes AB so good is that U2 brings a strong set of songs to a slight but significant tweak in their sound; REM seems to hope that a totally different sound will write the songs for them. Monster has many good songs spiced throughout, but a lot of times Buck is just leaning on the tremolo pedal and betting that something cool will happen. (One suspects that they needed to do a big tour to let material grow more organically - New Adventures In Hi-Fi, pretty much written and recorded on the Monster tour blows Zooropa out of the water, and can take Achtung in a fair fight.)

Achtung's production, for the most part, is a thickened-up (sometimes spaced-out) modernized version of U2 circa "Gloria," nearly completely bypassing the obnoxious Joshua Tree crap that put me off of them for so long.

It's got its downfalls - there's a sameyness to several tracks, to where you wonder if it's necessary to have "The Fly" AND "Until The End of the World" AND "Acrobat" on the same album ("Until The End of the World" clearly wins the category). But the dizzy disco ripple of "Even Better Than The Real Thing," the punchy gospel of "Mysterious Ways," and the wide-open lament of "So Cruel" - these are some fucking excellent songs! Monster for its part has, again, some great tracks, but most of them are working the same sonic territory (with the exception of "Tongue" and "Strange Currencies") making it feel much more like some sort of genre exercise than a major statement.

As for the posturing involved, miccio pretty much nails it with "You want to punch Bono in the sunglasses, you want REM to just take the damn things off and stop kidding themselves."

Eventually I'll probably overdose on Achtung and not want to hear it for ages, at which point they'll probably be about equal as things I pull out every once in a while and go "Hey, this is a lot better than I remember!"

More overuse of the word "irony." I don't see how R.E.M. deciding to do more of a rock album after Out of Time and Automatic for the People was in the least ironic.

http://rem.sk/news/monster.jpg

I used to have a poster of this, in black and white. REM - tough kids from the mean streets of Athens, GA??? It's just so out of touch with their previous "image" that one wants to read it as some sort of literate, deliberate posture rather than a sincere sell...

. . . and a couple hundred more in the back.!

That's my favorite part of the song! It's one of those stupid ideas executed brilliantly, with diminishing returns, as the years went on.

An even better thread idea might be to compare the albums' first singles: "The Fly" vs "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" At the time I was less prepared for the U2 song.

Monster's ringers: "You," "Circus Envy," "Bang and Blame."

Prediction: There will come a day when "The Fly" is your favorite song on Achtung Baby. This is what happens.

i like the idea of r.e.m. fans across the country returning en masse a week after monster came out to sell their no-longer-wanted copies

Whereas REM was coming off their Joshua Tree.